Its entirely in French, unfortunately for those who don't understand French. Maybe al-Takruri can do a better job at translating some of the text in this work, but here are some of the anthropometric and genetic plots from the work:
Anthropometric
Genetic
Notice the anthropometrics of the Sahelian populations
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
The notion that Tuaregs were once "Caucasoid Medits" who became blacker is refuted with this:
"Les Bella, en effet, ont presque toujours la peau très foncée et ne sauraient donc compter, dans leur immense majorité, des ascendants blancs. Mais beaucoup de leurs maîtres touaregs sont eux-mêmes noirs et c'est ce brassage (( noir-noir qui pourrait rendre compte de la différenciation des Bella. Les anciens auteurs considéraient les Touaregs come un groupe de Berbères méditerranéens u racialement purs ') au départ, et plus ou moins métissés, soit avec les Arabes (les Iregeynaten), soit, lors de leur progression vers le sud, avec des Négro-africains, et d'autant plus mélangés qu'ils sont de condition inférieure. 11 est difficile de prouver ce point de vue, même si on remplace la notion de pureté raciale par la simple endogamie.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Africa will be able to translate it, if he wishes to. Pax maybe another candidate, but he doesn't frequently post here as Africa does.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: The notion that Tuaregs were once "Caucasoid Medits" who became blacker is refuted with this:
"Les Bella, en effet, ont presque toujours la peau très foncée et ne sauraient donc compter, dans leur immense majorité, des ascendants blancs. Mais beaucoup de leurs maîtres touaregs sont eux-mêmes noirs et c'est ce brassage (( noir-noir qui pourrait rendre compte de la différenciation des Bella. Les anciens auteurs considéraient les Touaregs come un groupe de Berbères méditerranéens u racialement purs ') au départ, et plus ou moins métissés, soit avec les Arabes (les Iregeynaten), soit, lors de leur progression vers le sud, avec des Négro-africains, et d'autant plus mélangés qu'ils sont de condition inférieure. 11 est difficile de prouver ce point de vue, même si on remplace la notion de pureté raciale par la simple endogamie.
English:
“Bella, indeed, almost always have the very dark skin and could not thus count, in their immense majority, of the ascending white. But much of their Masters Tuaregs are themselves black and it is this mixing ((black-black which could account for the differentiation of Bella. The former authors racialement considered the Tuaregs come a group of Berber Mediterranean U pure ') at the beginning, and more or less métissés, either with the Arabs (Iregeynaten), or, at the time of their progression towards the south, with Négro-African, and all the more mixed since they are of lower condition. It is difficult to prove this point of view, even if one replaces the concept of racial purity by the simple endogamy."
The chart makes a point that these people are closely related to the Arabs, not Black Africans.
This chart only proves what the Berbers claimed themselves: they came from Arabia originally a point made clear by Diop.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ more nonsense from you, repeating bad arguments long ago refuted. how tiresome you've become.....
quote:Ausar wrote: In northern Sudan you have also people who claim false pedigrees but some are infact Arabic or at least mixed with Arabs. Some Arab groups in Sudan like the Ja'liyin and Baggara are Arabized. Ja'aliyin are Arabized Nubians and Baggara are Arabized Nilotic people.
The same goes with areas like Morocco and Algeria. The arab population in Libya is actually very high because of the Beni Hilal and beni Sulaiym invasion. This occured around the 1100's and drove the Berbers either to the mountains or further south. The tuareg people claim they originate in this region and so do most Berbers in Mauritania.
^ To imply that all Berber claim they come from Arabia is a lie.
In fact, there is little evidence the pre-Islamic NorthWest and West Africa had any knowledge of Arabia.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Genetically Tauregs have overwhelmingly the very African lineages that *cannot be found* in Dravidians. In fact, every known Berber population has predominently male E3b, E3a and/or B lineages which are all native African
Berber differ greatly in their female lineages, but even here, none are primarily descendant from Arabian females.
Taureg are most closely related to the Beja, Oromo, Somali, and Ethiopians.
Unlike Dravidians, who are not African, and do *not* have African lineages.
^ So, go write another geneticist and whine about another theory of yours that has been exploded.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Can't help but notice the high frequency of non-E3b lineages of E lineages amongst Tuaregs in this study.
The "Arabs" in the fig below [intro notes], does this include "North African" Arabs or just Arabian peninsula/"Southwest Asian" Arabs? If only it was in English.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
quote: The Bella, in reality, almost always are quite dark skinned, even though the vast majority have white ancestors.
However a lot of their Tuareg masters are themselves black. It's the mixture ((black - black which distinguishes the Bella. The old authors considered the Tuareg as a group of Mediterranean Berbers or racially pure) in the beginning, and more or less mixed, either with darker Arabs (Iregeynaten) or further on in their travels south, mixed with Black Africans, and other mixtures which were of a lesser nature.
It's difficult to prove that point of view even if one replaces the notion of racial purity with simple endogamy.
The above is an actual translation (not a SysTran word plug-in attempt simulating French into English.
I suspect the parenthesis are perhaps misplaced, and I arbitrarily broke it into three paragraphs.
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: The notion that Tuaregs were once "Caucasoid Medits" who became blacker is refuted with this:
"Les Bella, en effet, ont presque toujours la peau très foncée et ne sauraient donc compter, dans leur immense majorité, des ascendants blancs. Mais beaucoup de leurs maîtres touaregs sont eux-mêmes noirs et c'est ce brassage (( noir-noir qui pourrait rendre compte de la différenciation des Bella. Les anciens auteurs considéraient les Touaregs come un groupe de Berbères méditerranéens u racialement purs ') au départ, et plus ou moins métissés, soit avec les Arabes (les Iregeynaten), soit, lors de leur progression vers le sud, avec des Négro-africains, et d'autant plus mélangés qu'ils sont de condition inférieure. 11 est difficile de prouver ce point de vue, même si on remplace la notion de pureté raciale par la simple endogamie.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
If the translation above is any indicator, has it occurred to the authors that what they perceive as 'white ancestors' comes from intermixing with coastal "Berber" speaking groups? At any rate, an English version would be quite useful, if one is to read the entire study (including the maps above), and glean the specific contexts utilized therein. The Tuaregs and other Sahelian "Berber" speaking groups should most definitely cluster close to sub-Saharan groups in west Africa than any other "Berber" speaking groups. They should cluster closer to sub-Saharan Africans than they do to Eurasians. This is why I'm curious about the "Arabs" mentioned in the map, which I suspect from some of the names mentioned, are largely "Arabized" North Africans.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yes, in a northwest African context (as in continental Africa in general) "Arab" can mean anything from an actual Arabian peninsula Arabian to anyone whose mother tongue is Arabic and everything in between. In these studies (be they ethnology or anthropology) one need be wary of expecting "Arab" to mean the classic "sheikh of Araby" stereotypical kind of individual.
And indeed, looking at the supplied genetic graph, all the plotted Arab populations are African populations. I see no peninsular nor Syrian sample.
If we can believe Dana Reynolds:
quote:The original indigenous Berbers were the North African ancestors of the present day dark-brown peoples of the Sahara and the Sahel, mainly those called Fulani, Tuareg, Zenagha of Southern Morocco, Kunta and Tebbu of the Sahel countries, as well as other dark-brown arabs now living in Mauretania and throughout the Sahel, including the Trarza of Mauretania and Senegal, the Mogharba as well as dozens of other Sudanese tribes, the Chaamba of Chad and Algeria
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^Maybe this is old info, but apparently Dana Reynold doesn't seem to be aware that Fulani aren't considered "Berber"/northwest Afrasan speakers; rather they are characterized as part of the Atlantic branch of the Niger-Congo superfamily.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ She knows that. But Berber was not originally defined based on language. The Beja are also called "Berber" in some old texts. Fulani are not Berbers - but they are original North Africans.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
^ She knows that.
Then why did she say this:
The original indigenous Berbers were the North African ancestors of the present day dark-brown peoples of the Sahara and the Sahel, mainly those called Fulani, Tuareg, Zenagha of Southern Morocco, Kunta and Tebbu of the Sahel countries,...
If she knew what I had just stated, then she should know better than to say what she stated above.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I just answered that question. She is not using the linguistic definition of Berber.
She is refering to people historically known as Berbers. And historically - many of these people *do not* speak Berber langauges.
I think you should read some of the scholars in full, before leaping to conclusions based on abstracts.
The quote actually comes from Ivan Sertima's Golden Age of the Moors. Have you read it?
In full: According to Dana Reynolds, the original Black Berbers, who were called Moors, were the North African ancestors of the present day dark-brown and dark-black peoples of the Sahara and the Sahel, mainly those called Fulani, Tuareg, Zenagha of Southern Morocco, Kunta and Tebbu of the Sahel countries as well as other black Arabs now living in Mauretania and throughout the Sahel, they include Trarza of Mauretania and Senegal, the Mogharba as well as dozens of other Sudanese tribes, the Chaamba of Chad and Algeria. Apart from her very detailed study of the origins and affiliations of the various tribes, she points out that the Africans involved in the Moorish occupation of Iberia did not just build remarkable things in Europe but also in their native lands. They founded and constructed many industrious and prosperous towns all over the north of Africa and as far south as Timbuktu. The ruins of their many castles can be seen as much in Northern Africa as in Andalusia.
Note Sertima includes 'dozens of Sudanese tribes'.
He is obviously not saying they speak Berber langauge, but if you want to suggest that Sertima doesn't know this....go right ahead.
Again, I suggest.....slow your roll. Listen before you leap.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
^ I just answered that question. She is not using the linguistic definition of Berber.
You just don't seem to get it, do you? Even so, who calls any group 'today' "Berbers", aside from the linguistic affiliation?
quote: She is refering to people historically known as Berbers. And historically - many of these people *do not* speak Berber langauges.
That still doesn't make her statement accurate, or right.
quote: I think you should read some of the scholars in full, before leaping to conclusions based on abstracts.
I think you should read my statements carefully, before rashly jumping to conclusions. If you had, you'd have noticed that I'm wary that this sort of outmoded 'blanket'/indiscriminate' application of the term would have only been made by any scholar in their right mind, either before the term "Berber" became only utilized in a linguistic sense/context,OR when they are quoting or citing ancient accounts/texts utilizing the term.
quote: The quote actually comes from Ivan Sertima's Golden Age of the Moors. Have you read it?
In full: According to Dana Reynolds, the original Black Berbers, who were called Moors, were the North African ancestors of the present day dark-brown and dark-black peoples of the Sahara and the Sahel, mainly those called Fulani, Tuareg, Zenagha of Southern Morocco, Kunta and Tebbu of the Sahel countries as well as other black Arabs now living in Mauretania and throughout the Sahel, they include Trarza of Mauretania and Senegal, the Mogharba as well as dozens of other Sudanese tribes, the Chaamba of Chad and Algeria. Apart from her very detailed study of the origins and affiliations of the various tribes, she points out that the Africans involved in the Moorish occupation of Iberia did not just build remarkable things in Europe but also in their native lands. They founded and constructed many industrious and prosperous towns all over the north of Africa and as far south as Timbuktu. The ruins of their many castles can be seen as much in Northern Africa as in Andalusia.
Needless to say that this "blanket" application of "Berbers", is not only outmoded, but also inaccurately makes it seem that all the said groups stem from the same recent ancestors. Goes back to the point I just made. Even so, the author professes that the blanket term "Moors" was applied; does this mean that "Moors" and "Berbers" were used concurrently in reference to "North Africans" by the ancients?...because he must only be placing these terms in the outmoded historic contexts they were placed in, as a scholar who is well aware of the modern "linguistic-only" context of the term "Berber".
quote: Note Sertima includes 'dozens of Sudanese tribes'.
He is obviously not saying they speak Berber langauge, but if you want to suggest that Sertima doesn't know this....go right ahead.
What he knows, is irrelevant to what I stated above.
quote: Again, I suggest.....slow your roll. Listen before you leap.
It looks like the one who needs to head that advice is but yourself. See the posts above.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I saw it, and i'm saddened by the rock headed folly on display.
This will be my last reply on this subject, which is one more than you deserve...
quote:Supercar writes: You just don't seem to get it, do you? Even so, who calls any group 'today' "Berbers", aside from the linguistic affiliation?
^ Non sequitur, since they are discussing the history of people called Berbers...not 'who calls any group Berber today'. Berber is today a linguistic group, but it has not been so for most of it's history. This is the context of Dr. Van Sertima's intelligent discourse. Not his fault that you are too lazy to read it, and so miss the point.
He doesn't need you to tell him that the Fulani speak a Niger-Congo language, silly. That's besides the point.
You seem to be on some imaginery 'debate' pitting Dr. Van Sertima against Dr. Obvious, namely you...who once again didn't even bother to read the article he's ranting about.
Here's what matters....
quote:rasol: Have you read it?
quote:supercar: No I haven't.
^ You'd rather rant than read, and that's where we differ. Rant on, my friend, but don't waste my time.....this conversation is over. Come back when you've read what you're ranting about, and we can have a real discussion.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by r-asshole:
^ I saw it, and i'm saddened by the rock headed folly on display.
I saw your post, and I wasn't amused by what a profoundly illiterate retard you are.
quote:r-asshole:
This will be my last reply on this subject, which is one more than you deserve...
quote:Supercar writes: You just don't seem to get it, do you? Even so, who calls any group 'today' "Berbers", aside from the linguistic affiliation?
^
Non sequitur, since they are discussing the history of people called Berbers...not 'who calls any group Berber today'.
Retard, which "Berbers" are "they" discussing; according to which historic texts referencing that term?
quote:r-asshole:
Berber is today a linguistic group, but it has not been so for most of it's history. This is the context of Dr. Van Sertima's intelligent discourse. Not his fault that you are too lazy to read it, and so miss the point.
Jackass, tell me why haven't you answered this:
the author professes that the blanket term "Moors" was applied; does this mean that "Moors" and "Berbers" were used concurrently in reference to "North Africans" by the ancients?
^^Name the "specific" historic texts that cite "Berbers" and "Moors" as a reference to North Africans concurrently, and interchangeably, and how they applied to the mentioned groups? Tell us who these specific historic authors are, and the specific timeframes they made the texts in question? Let's find out how much you learn from Van Sertima, whom you just so happened to inject into the discussion.
quote:r-asshole:
He doesn't need you to tell him that the Fulani speak a Niger-Congo language, silly. That's besides the point.
Well punk, you wouldn't see a 'point' if it ran over you; you've already been told that the indiscriminate use of "Berber" [aside from its up-to-date context of linguistic affiliation] in this day and age is not only irresponsible, but that its application as done in the citation, is distorted even when placed in a historical context.
quote: You seem to be on some imaginery 'debate' pitting Dr. Van Sertima against Dr. Obvious, namely you...who once again didn't even bother to read the article he's ranting about.
r-asshole, having not bothered to 'carefully' read my post that you are ranting about, I believe you are the one who injected Van Sertima into a discussion wherein I never even mentioned the guy, and now like the desperate hypocrite that you are, proclaiming that I'm the one pitting myself against the man. What crack-ass you are. LOL.
quote:r-asshole:
Here's what matters....
quote:rasol: Have you read it?
quote:supercar: No I haven't.
^
So this is the desperateness you're reduced to, r-asshole?
...copying & pasting stuff from completely different discussions, from completely different timeframes, not to mention the completely different contexts; You must really think that there is another person out there as immensely dense as yourself to fall for this lame stunt.
quote: You'd rather rant than read, and that's where we differ. Rant on, my friend, but don't waste my time.....this conversation is over. Come back when you've read what you're ranting about, and we can have real discussion
And here's my advice: Come back when you are able to distinguish your ass from your head, answer the questions as asked [instead of dodging them again], after having 'carefully' read my post. Go!
Posted by vidadavida (Member # 12945) on :
Black on Black crime Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ lol. It's not serious. We've all seen SuperCar's juvenile tantrums before. No one cares. Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Even the bedouins around the Sinai and parts of Egypt are often Arabized Beja or contain groups of non-Arabian peninsula origin. When analyzing these groups its important to break them down into which bedouin group instead of grouping them all together as a whole.
The Tuareg are a collective people that form many groups or Kels that require the same precise analyization.
The French have a weird sense of whiteness vs. blackness and would probably think that most Carribean Hispanic groups like Puerto Ricans are ''white'' because they are very light brown or often have whites amongst them. Maghrebians[including Tuaregs] were called ''white'' in Francophone literature despite most being a very light brown complexion. Of course there are many ''white'' skinned Maghrebians but the majority are just a lighter brownish color. The ironic sociological factor is that no Maghrebian regardless of their color is afforded any privilage in French society.
The theory of Tuaregs becoming darker because of intermingling with sub-Saharan Africans or Arabs seems inplausible to me. Most high caste Tuaregs would not mix with enslaved populations bvecause of the strict matrilineal sucession. The Tuaregs mixing with Arabs is definately out of the question considering that Tuaregs put up fierce resistance against the Arabs. Only one Tuareg Kel has mixed with Arabs.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Even the bedouins around the Sinai and parts of Egypt are often Arabized Beja or contain groups of non-Arabian peninsula origin. When analyzing these groups its important to break them down into which bedouin group instead of grouping them all together as a whole.
The Tuareg are a collective people that form many groups or Kels that require the same precise analyization.
The French have a weird sense of whiteness vs. blackness and would probably think that most Carribean Hispanic groups like Puerto Ricans are ''white'' because they are very light brown or often have whites amongst them. Maghrebians[including Tuaregs] were called ''white'' in Francophone literature despite most being a very light brown complexion. Of course there are many ''white'' skinned Maghrebians but the majority are just a lighter brownish color. The ironic sociological factor is that no Maghrebian regardless of their color is afforded any privilage in French society.
The theory of Tuaregs becoming darker because of intermingling with sub-Saharan Africans or Arabs seems inplausible to me. Most high caste Tuaregs would not mix with enslaved populations bvecause of the strict matrilineal sucession. The Tuaregs mixing with Arabs is definately out of the question considering that Tuaregs put up fierce resistance against the Arabs. Only one Tuareg Kel has mixed with Arabs.
There seems to be very little evidence that Berber speakers in general look to "Yemen" as a home of origin, and what little there is 'sussed' due to the Islamic bragging rights factor.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
^ lol. It's not serious. We've all seen SuperCar's juvenile tantrums before. No one cares.
You bet it's not serious, so much so that you put yourself on some imaginary 'moral' pedastal, when it is clear for all to see that 'juvenile tantrums' you are referring to, was initiated by none other than yourself. Not a single name calling in my responses to you prior to the last, which was obviously a way to communicate down to you as the 'juvenile' with 'tantrums' that you were [and still are]. Apparently, you cared enough to show another of those 'juvenile tantrums' even in this very post that I'm quoting you on, while coming up quite short on answers [actually no answers] to what you were requested to produce.
Ps - Those outstanding requests to yet be answered:
Produce 'historic' reference on the 'berber', by specifically 'whom', with respect to 'specifically' whom, and it had better be in application to all the said groups mentioned in the so-called extract.
Produce the 'historic' reference that these same groups were referred to as 'Moors' concurrently with the term 'Berber'.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Well, I'd say, some Sahelians in general look to the Yemen for pedigree. The most famous non-Amazigh example would be Dia al~Yemen in the Songhai kingdom/empire founder mythos (Za dynasty c. 690 CE).
And yes, Islam has everything to do with it. Yet and still, we must recognize the idea of patrilineal ancestry, and the droves of Yeminis who did indeed flock to Africa (though, of course, doing so much too late to be responsible for any polity other than that of what's today Mauritania).
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
I agree, key point is that "Arbabian" lineages are surprisingly low, even among the fair-skinned Magrebian Berber....much less among the darker Berber of inner Africa.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yeah, weren't that many to start with, and what few there actually were apparently their genes drifted away or never made it through to the bottle's neck.
Posted by Africa (Member # 12142) on :
quote:The French have a weird sense of whiteness vs. blackness and would probably think that most Carribean Hispanic groups like Puerto Ricans are ''white'' because they are very light brown or often have whites amongst them. Maghrebians[including Tuaregs] were called ''white'' in Francophone literature despite most being a very light brown complexion. Of course there are many ''white'' skinned Maghrebians but the majority are just a lighter brownish color. The ironic sociological factor is that no Maghrebian regardless of their color is afforded any privilage in French society.
^ lol. It's not serious. We've all seen SuperCar's juvenile tantrums before. No one cares.
You bet it's not serious, so much so that you put yourself on some imaginary 'moral' pedastal, when it is clear for all to see that 'juvenile tantrums' you are referring to, was initiated by none other than yourself. Not a single name calling in my responses to you prior to the last, which was obviously a way to communicate down to you as the 'juvenile' with 'tantrums' that you were [and still are]. Apparently, you cared enough to show another of those 'juvenile tantrums' even in this very post that I'm quoting you on, while coming up quite short on answers [actually no answers] to what you were requested to produce.
Ps - Those outstanding requests to yet be answered:
Produce 'historic' reference on the 'berber', by specifically 'whom', with respect to 'specifically' whom, and it had better be in application to all the said groups mentioned in the so-called extract.
Produce the 'historic' reference that these same groups were referred to as 'Moors' concurrently with the term 'Berber'.
A sure good thing that you are well aware that you don't have the spine to address these 'seemingly' casual questions; it is obviously easy to simply parrot other people without having a clue about what you are parroting. Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
I think the first thing people need to be aware of when referring to "Berbers" is that it is the French who first came to call the Kabyles and other fair-skinned peoples by the term Berber. That usage is very recent. Previous to that Arabicized Muslims and Islamicized Africans referred only to Tuareg and related tribes as the "Berberi". Romans and Byzantines generally referred to these tribes as Maures or Mauresioi. Corippus, Procopius, Polemon, Platus, Claudian in his de Bello Gildonico, Juvenal all describe the early "Berbers" as black, Ethiopians, dark red as the Indi.
The Periplus of the Eritraean Sea near the time of Christ refers to the people of the area now generally referred to as Somalia as the country of the Berbers. Berber was a not an infrequent place name among the Cushitic speakers and it is evidently related to the name for watering places, and was probably etymologically related to the Cushitic and Berber word for the phallus, warrior and young males in general.
Procopius (6th century) referred to all of the ancient so called "Berber" rulers of the Massyles (direct ancestors of the modern Messalama of Libya and Sudan). Masasyles (modern Shilha,Chluh), Gaitules (Joddala modern pastoral Fulani) as Maures and says the Maures "were black unlike the Vandals". Corippus similarly refers to the more than one to the black color of the Maures. The name Gildo, the ruler of the Maures of Roman North Africa comes from the Tuarek word Gallidi-ma or Aguellid. The name of the ruler Tekfarinas means son of the Afaren and Ifuren the name of the Tuarek clans which later Muslims came to call Beni Yafren or Ifren (anciently called Afar and Pharusii). Claudian said his mixing of Roman women with Gildo's tribesmen made "Ethiopian hybrids" affright the cradles.
Thus confusing modern Berbers or rather Berber speakers - a polyglot of peoples who consist of different colors and cultures, with the ancient speakers of Berber has done nothing but cause confusion as to the origins of the Tuarek and the original populations of North Africa - both dark and fair-skinned.
When Sultan Mohamed Bello in a Bornu manuscript Infak al Masuri written around the late 1700s or early 1800s refers to Berbers as "a remnant of the Beriberi living between the Zinj and Habesh", he is obviously not referring to Kabyles, Shawia and other very fair skinned Berber-speakers whose palm prints, blood types and pottery shows they are likely biological descendants of ancient Greeks and other Euro-Mediterraneans. This doesn't preclude the fact that they also have Afro-Asiatic or Berber genes as well.
However, it was the ancestors of the Tuarek who conquered these North African coastal areas and brought the so called Berber dialect of Tamashek - meaning simply belonging to the Imoshagh or Amazek). The Mezikes who were known to Byzantine writers as "Ethiopians" were one ancestral group of the Tuarek also known as Megabari and Makhuritae in Nubia until late. The word seems to be a compound word comprised of their ancient sun and fire god Mash and the sak or zag signifying encampment around the hearth. Richmond Palmer and others, long before the discovery of a genetic connection to the Bedja or Bediyat(ancient Madjayu)or Beja had classified Tuarek customs as Beja customs.
Previous to the camel-owning Tuarek in North Africa who as Ethio-Arabians probably settled in Egypt and North Africa from the Gulf of Elah with the (Hyksos invasions of the mid-snd millenium B.C.) were the Fulani, Fellata or Peuls also known as Futa-be (Woodabe). Those still located in refugee camps in Niger and other parts of the Sahel are the spitting image of the peoples pictured in the ancient tomb paintings of the Lebou-Tenennu as shown in books of Nina Davies.
Many still have the same exact brown coloring, physiognomy, hairstyles with braids and side curl and acquiline profiles aside, while the authors and photographers of the Fulani in the book NOMADS OF THE NIGER, show that even the Fulani dress and tatoos are still the same as was worn by the Tehenu people over 3000 years ago. The many cultural connections of the Fulani with these ancient Libyans had already been spoken of by Oric Bates who did not even have access to many of the archeological references we have today on ancient North Africa.
The fact that Fulani today speak a language related more to West African Niger-Congo groups means little and has to do with them living longer amongst other Africans in the area of Takrur, etc. A fact is, early explorers knew the Fulani to be speakers of two dialects - one of which was different enough to have been considered of an origin external to Africa. Another fact is Muslim writers definitely considered the Fulani of Goddala ancestry and thus they are likely the Gaitules mentioned by Juvenal, Procopius and other early writers 1500 to 2000 years ago as being "black" and for Josephus descendants of Kush.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I think the first thing people need to be aware of when referring to "Berbers" is that it is the French who first came to call the Kabyles and other fair-skinned peoples by the term Berber. That usage is very recent. Previous to that Arabicized Muslims and Islamicized Africans referred only to Tuareg and related tribes as the "Berberi".
^ This is precisely correct, and this is what Van Sertima was relating by way of Dana Reynolds, which AlTakruri 1st posted.
Champollion for example, refers to the Beja of Egypt and Sudan, as Berberi.
You are, all 4 of you...correct. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Thus confusing modern Berbers or rather Berber speakers - a polyglot of peoples who consist of different colors and cultures, with the ancient speakers of Berber has done nothing but cause confusion as to the origins of the Tuarek and the original populations of North Africa - both dark and fair-skinned.
Agreed.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Previous to the camel-owning Tuarek in North Africa who as Ethio-Arabians probably settled in Egypt and North Africa from the Gulf of Elah with the (Hyksos invasions of the mid-snd millenium B.C.) were the Fulani, Fellata or Peuls also known as Futa-be (Woodabe). Those still located in refugee camps in Niger and other parts of the Sahel are the spitting image of the peoples pictured in the ancient tomb paintings of the Lebou-Tenennu as shown in books of Nina Davies.
Many still have the same exact brown coloring, physiognomy, hairstyles with braids and side curl and acquiline profiles aside, while the authors and photographers of the Fulani in the book NOMADS OF THE NIGER, show that even the Fulani dress and tatoos are still the same as was worn by the Tehenu people over 3000 years ago.
Here is where you go astray, although understandably.
Based upon genetics - Taureg are overwhelmingly Native African, and possibly East African in origin.
Based upon genetics, Fulani are overwhelmingly West African, and have no substantial East African component.
It's the Taureg, The Siwa and possibly the Beja who are related to the Tehenu, not the Fulani.
Bearing in mind that the subject of this thread is genetics, please see the following...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ The genetic distance between the Taureg and the Beja [135] is close enough that Cavelli Sforze theorizes a common East African origin within the last 5000 years, for them.
Taureg lineages vary greatly but in some genetic study they show as having as much as 30% E3b [east african], 30% native E1 and E2 [sahelian/west african], and 30% E3a [west african. They have very little in the way of a Arabian component usually less than 10%, so they definitely do not originate in Arabia.
In contrast, the Fulani, in some studies have as much as 100% E3a...they are one of the few groups ever studied in the history of genetics to ever yield such mono-topic paternal lineage.
No groups of Fulani have been shown to be significantly E3b - East African, and in genetic distance - Fulani are virtually indistinguishable from other West Africans, in comparison with East Africans from whom they are quite distant.
Look at the relationship in the graph above between West Africans, on the one hand, and Taureg and Beja, as well as other East Africans on the other. [dist. ave 500].
Based on the accumlation of genetic, archeological and linguistic evidence, Fulani originate in the Sahara - from no further east than Algeria.
Taureg originate in East Africa, possible in the horn Sudan region or the Siwa Oasis region West of the Nile.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Taureg lineages vary greatly but in some genetic study they show as having as much as 30% E3b [east african], 30% native E1 and E2 [sahelian/west african], and 30% E3a [west african. They have very little in the way of a Arabian component usually less than 10%, so they definitely do not originate in Arabia.
In contrast, the Fulani, in some studies have as much as 100% E3a...they are one of the few groups ever studied in the history of genetics to ever yield such mono-topic paternal lineage.
No groups of Fulani have been shown to be significantly E3b - East African, and in genetic distance - Fulani are virtually indistinguishable from other West Africans, in comparison with East Africans from whom they are quite distant.
Look at the relationship in the graph above between West Africans, on the one hand, and Taureg and Beja, as well as other East Africans on the other. [dist. ave 500].
Based on the accumlation of genetic, archeological and linguistic evidence, Fulani originate in the Sahara - from no further east than Algeria.
Taureg originate in East Africa, possible in the horn Sudan region or the Siwa Oasis region West of the Nile.
Evergreen Writes:
It is necessary to do further sampling of Fulani sub-sets from various locations. In addition, we need to have further delineation of haplogroup E3a. E3a carriers were certainly present in Holocene NE Africa (Siwa Oasis), correct? However, you are correct in that the elongated morphology of Fulani was also presnet in NW Africa as well. It is a Sahel specific morphology.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:It is necessary to do further sampling of Fulani sub-sets from various locations. In addition, we need to have further delineation of haplogroup E3a. E3a carriers were certainly present in Holocene NE Africa (Siwa Oasis), correct?
Is there E3a in Siwa? What study are you referencing here?
And, how to account for the abscense of E3b in the several Fulani studies to date?
quote:However, you are correct in that the elongated morphology of Fulani was also presnet in NW Africa as well. It is a Sahel specific morphology.
Absolutely, and this goes for the Taureg too, who have similar morphology.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Is there E3a in Siwa? What study are you referencing here?
Evergreen Writes:
Not sure, it was a actual question. Keita has noted that E3a flowed into AE from the neolithic Sahara. If this were the case, given the archaeology one would expect the range of E3a to reach Siwa, correct? What this points out is that more study is required before we can reach concensus.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]And, how to account for the abscense of E3b in the several Fulani studies to date?
Evergreen Writes:
I am actually not sure that this is an accurate assumption. Are you comfortable making this assertion given the limited samples of Fulani from Niger?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
Evergreen Writes:
What is problematic about discussing Tuareg, Fulani, Siwa, etc over great expanses of time is that all of these MODERN populations have multiple ANCIENT lineages with diverse geographic origins.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
I think the first thing people need to be aware of when referring to "Berbers" is that it is the French who first came to call the Kabyles and other fair-skinned peoples by the term Berber. That usage is very recent. Previous to that Arabicized Muslims and Islamicized Africans referred only to Tuareg and related tribes as the "Berberi". Romans and Byzantines generally referred to these tribes as Maures or Mauresioi. Corippus, Procopius, Polemon, Platus, Claudian in his de Bello Gildonico, Juvenal all describe the early "Berbers" as black, Ethiopians, dark red as the Indi...
I think the first thing people need to be aware of when referring to "Berbers" is that it is the French who first came to call the Kabyles and other fair-skinned peoples by the term Berber.
From where did the French develop this term? When and at specifically whom, did the French apply? Please provide primary specific sources, if you will.
quote:
That usage is very recent.
Figures, which is why when it is used as in a citation above, one has to wonder about the validity of the application in either its historic context, or recent.
quote: Previous to that Arabicized Muslims and Islamicized Africans referred only to Tuareg and related tribes as the "Berberi".
Does this have any relation to the term "al-Barbar". What do you know about this term, where and to whom was it specifically and initially applied, and originally by whom? Who are the "Tuareg's" related tribes as you 'understand' it?
quote: Romans and Byzantines generally referred to these tribes as Maures or Mauresioi. Corippus, Procopius, Polemon, Platus, Claudian in his de Bello Gildonico, Juvenal all describe the early "Berbers" as black, Ethiopians, dark red as the Indi.
I notice you placed Berbers in quotation marks, and naturally, you are speaking of two different timeframes, for the Romans never used such a term as "Berbers". So you cannot be using the term "Berbers" within the Roman context, to refer to "black [groups], Ethiopians, dark as red as the Indians", and not be attributing it to the 'modern' construct of "Berbers", as it is used today.
quote:The Periplus of the Eritraean Sea near the time of Christ refers to the people of the area now generally referred to as Somalia as the country of the Berbers. Berber was a not an infrequent place name among the Cushitic speakers and it is evidently related to the name for watering places, and was probably etymologically related to the Cushitic and Berber word for the phallus, warrior and young males in general.
I understand the term along the lines of "Barbar" or "Barbary" was used somewhere in what is now part of Somalia in the past, a term which stuck in Somalia, but never developed to the point where "Somalis" have become associated with the term "Berber". Why do you think that is?
quote: Procopius (6th century) referred to all of the ancient so called "Berber" rulers of the Massyles (direct ancestors of the modern Messalama of Libya and Sudan).
Exactly what term did Procopius use; can you produce a citation. I also can't help but notice that you said "Massyles" are "direct ancestors of the modern Messalama of Libya and Sudan" But to which group, and located where, did Procopius initially make the said reference?
quote: Masasyles (modern Shilha,Chluh), Gaitules (Joddala modern pastoral Fulani) as Maures and says the Maures "were black unlike the Vandals". Corippus similarly refers to the more than one to the black color of the Maures.
Were all these groups also called the people of "bilad al Barbar", while being called "Maures"? Does the author specifically use the constructs that you've used for these ethnic entities, in terms of "Masayles" and "Joddala" which you've associated with certain groups. How did you derive the associations?...Through the said folks themselves or through outsiders, i.e. from the time that Procopius mentioned the aforementioned names. In which source(s) does Procopius make these observations?
quote: The name Gildo, the ruler of the Maures of Roman North Africa comes from the Tuarek word Gallidi-ma or Aguellid. The name of the ruler Tekfarinas means son of the Afaren and Ifuren the name of the Tuarek clans which later Muslims came to call Beni Yafren or Ifren (anciently called Afar and Pharusii). Claudian said his mixing of Roman women with Gildo's tribesmen made "Ethiopian hybrids" affright the cradles.
"Maures" was used by Romans, but only on coastal North Africans of the time, and if anything remotely approaching sub-Saharan Africa, it would be regions near the Sahelian portions of east Africa, like that of Kush, around the areas bordering Kush and Egypt at the time.
quote: Thus confusing modern Berbers or rather Berber speakers - a polyglot of peoples who consist of different colors and cultures, with the ancient speakers of Berber has done nothing but cause confusion as to the origins of the Tuarek and the original populations of North Africa - both dark and fair-skinned.
Which brings me back to the point about your claim of its 'recent' provenance. Where and when was the term "Berber" first attested to, and by which author? From where did this term 'develop'? To specifically which region(s) and specifically whom was it applied, and by whom? Do you think it is accidental that the term "Berber" has become associated with certain sub-Afrasan language speakers?
quote:
When Sultan Mohamed Bello in a Bornu manuscript Infak al Masuri written around the late 1700s or early 1800s refers to Berbers as "a remnant of the Beriberi living between the Zinj and Habesh", he is obviously not referring to Kabyles, Shawia and other very fair skinned Berber-speakers whose palm prints, blood types and pottery shows they are likely biological descendants of ancient Greeks and other Euro-Mediterraneans. This doesn't preclude the fact that they also have Afro-Asiatic or Berber genes as well.
Goes back to my mention of 'bilad al Barbar'. How does this author precisely reference the term; does it in any way ressemble what I just mentioned? If there is no distinction here, why do you suppose that the said author would do this, given that Arab historians generally called regions in the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa as 'bilad al Sudan'. Did the author assume some form of bio-cultural relationship here as a justification, 'providing' that the exact same constructs where used on geographically distant locations?
quote: However, it was the ancestors of the Tuarek who conquered these North African coastal areas and brought the so called Berber dialect of Tamashek - meaning simply belonging to the Imoshagh or Amazek).
The Sanhaja "Berbers" and perhaps other related Sahelian "Berber speaking" [Tuareg groups] groups did conquer coastal Northwest Africa, from thence moved into the Iberian peninsula [in Spain], where they were referred to as "Maurs". I use the term "Berber" in its modern context, in reference to the said groups as they are now known to "Euro-schooled' outsiders of the term/construct. Guess what? It was coastal northwest Africa, which was referred to as "bilad al Barbar" by the folks from the Arab or "Arabized world" in "southwest Asia" and "north Africa", given which, it wouldn't be puzzling to figure out how the name got to Europeans, who were at the time not exactly familiar with inner-Africans. "Maures" was a term used on these North Africans by "Europeans" of the time, i.e. throughout the 'Medieval period', whereby its context changed from the earlier times of that period to the later times, after that period. During those early days when North Africans ruled in southwest Europe, it was just in reference to coastal Northwest African kingdoms, established by Sahelian "Berber" groups from within the vicinity of the region between Morocco and Mauritania.
quote:rasol
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I think the first thing people need to be aware of when referring to "Berbers" is that it is the French who first came to call the Kabyles and other fair-skinned peoples by the term Berber. That usage is very recent. Previous to that Arabicized Muslims and Islamicized Africans referred only to Tuareg and related tribes as the "Berberi".
^ This is precisely correct, and this is what Van Sertima was relating by way of Dana Reynolds, which AlTakruri 1st posted.
Dana Reynold's according to the piece above, is referencing certain groups. Where is your evidence that the term "Berber" originally referred to all these groups, and by whom, and when? What is the precise historic time frame that this reference was made, and how did this application come to be? Please provide the full etymology of the term, the texts they were used in, the authors who used it, and on whom it was applied. Let's examine if your claim about the 'original indigenous Berbers' fits the bill, i.e. your earlier assertion in response to my post.
quote: Champollion for example, refers to the Beja of Egypt and Sudan, as Berberi.
You are, all 4 of you...correct
So is Dana/Van Sertima basing "dozens of other Sudanese tribes" on a fairly recent scholar as "Champollion" or the "ancient" context? …Or did Champollion use the same specific sources to make the claim? Please clarify, and how this puts them in the same bracket of being 'correct'. If not, please provide the exact sources and time frames that Dana/Van Sertima used to justify the manner which the term "Berber" was applied in the extract provided earlier.
If you can discuss this off-topic issue here, then I see no reason why it can't be discussed on-topic in a topic that actually addresses the issue. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Evergreen Writes:
I am actually not sure that this is an accurate assumption. Are you comfortable making this assertion given the limited samples of Fulani from Niger?
i'm comfortable with relating the existing evidence, whatever it may be.
if there are studies showing signficant e3b in fulani....i'd be very comfortable relating them, however i don't know of any.
I am familiar with distinct studies of fulani from niger, from cameroon, burkina faso and from senegal, as well as hla data from burkina faso, and sforza's autosomal data.
the general approach of these studies is to speculate on and exotic origin for the fulani, and most often relate surprise when little or no such indicators are found.
In these cases exotic is equated to: Berber, Egyptian, Arabian, and/or Majik-K'zoid.
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
^ The genetic distance between the Taureg and the Beja [135] is close enough that Cavelli Sforze theorizes a common East African origin within the last 5000 years, for them.
Taureg lineages vary greatly but in some genetic study they show as having as much as 30% E3b [east african], 30% native E1 and E2 [sahelian/west african], and 30% E3a [west african. They have very little in the way of a Arabian component usually less than 10%, so they definitely do not originate in Arabia.
In contrast, the Fulani, in some studies have as much as 100% E3a...they are one of the few groups ever studied in the history of genetics to ever yield such mono-topic paternal lineage.
No groups of Fulani have been shown to be significantly E3b - East African, and in genetic distance - Fulani are virtually indistinguishable from other West Africans, in comparison with East Africans from whom they are quite distant.
Look at the relationship in the graph above between West Africans, on the one hand, and Taureg and Beja, as well as other East Africans on the other. [dist. ave 500].
Based on the accumlation of genetic, archeological and linguistic evidence, Fulani originate in the Sahara - from no further east than Algeria.
Taureg originate in East Africa, possible in the horn Sudan region or the Siwa Oasis region West of the Nile.
Mayne, I would be wary of any close genetic relationship between Beja and Tuaregs, just look at this critiwue of Cavalli-Sforza data:
"Within the Saharan/Northern African group there are two subclusters. One is comprised of a number of "national" North African populations (Moroccan, Tunisian, Libyan, Egyptian), as well as Nubian, Bedouin, Berber, and Canarian. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994:172) note that there are few data available on the genetic makeup of the Canarian group, and it is not clear whether they are data on modern peoples or on the extinct Guanches. The other cluster consists of a number of Northeast African populations, including the national Sudanese and a generalized Cushitic-speaking group. Within this Northeast African group, one subcluster does not conform to historical or linguistic expectations, as it associates the Algerian national population fairly closely with the Beja of eastern Sudan and somewhat more distantly with the Berber-speaking Tuareg; the latter group thus appears to be rather distinct from other Berber populations. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (pp. 17273) posit an ancient relationship between Tuareg and Beja, largely, it appears, on the basis of their shared status as pastoralists. There are no other data that I know of that indicate such a link, and in any case it does not explain the putative close relationship of modern Algerians to both groups. The researchers note that they have data on relatively few genes from this Algerian group, but it should be pointed out that such small data sets are no obstacle to the acceptance of particular genetic associations when these fit their expectationsthe Canarian case noted above is a good example. This pattern of acceptance and rejection of generally equivalent data on the basis of their concordance with expectations is common throughout The History and Geography of Human Genes and is an example of the strategy of post-hoc accommodative argument noted by Clark (1998)."
The study you got that fst distsnce chart from is full of discrepancies that have not been fully explained by Cavalli-Sforza.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^I've already pointed out the other flaws of the study having to do with what comprises the sampling "entities", when this chart was posted. I'll see if I can dig out the thread in question. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see some close genetic linkage between "Tuareg" [West African Sahelian Tamazigh speaking] groups, and the Bedawi (Beja speakers). I thought it was interesting that according to a poster going by the "Jomo" username, having wrote to Underhill out of curiousity about which groups Underhill detected E-M81 in Sudan, that he was told that it occurred in two Beja subjects.
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Taureg lineages vary greatly but in some genetic study they show as having as much as 30% E3b [east african], 30% native E1 and E2 [sahelian/west african], and 30% E3a [west african. They have very little in the way of a Arabian component usually less than 10%, so they definitely do not originate in Arabia.
In contrast, the Fulani, in some studies have as much as 100% E3a...they are one of the few groups ever studied in the history of genetics to ever yield such mono-topic paternal lineage.
No groups of Fulani have been shown to be significantly E3b - East African, and in genetic distance - Fulani are virtually indistinguishable from other West Africans, in comparison with East Africans from whom they are quite distant.
Look at the relationship in the graph above between West Africans, on the one hand, and Taureg and Beja, as well as other East Africans on the other. [dist. ave 500].
Based on the accumlation of genetic, archeological and linguistic evidence, Fulani originate in the Sahara - from no further east than Algeria.
Taureg originate in East Africa, possible in the horn Sudan region or the Siwa Oasis region West of the Nile.
Evergreen Writes:
It is necessary to do further sampling of Fulani sub-sets from various locations. In addition, we need to have further delineation of haplogroup E3a. E3a carriers were certainly present in Holocene NE Africa (Siwa Oasis), correct? However, you are correct in that the elongated morphology of Fulani was also presnet in NW Africa as well. It is a Sahel specific morphology.
As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%, while having only 1% of E-M81.
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ^I've already pointed out the other flaws of the study having to do with what comprises the sampling "entities", when this chart was posted. I'll see if I can dig out the thread in question. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see some close genetic linkage between "Tuareg" [West African Sahelian Tamazigh speaking] groups, and the Bedawi (Beja speakers). I thought it was interesting that according to a poster going by the "Jomo" username, having wrote to Underhill out of curiousity about which groups Underhill detected E-M81 in Sudan, that he was told that it occurred in two Beja subjects.
I understand what you're saying, but in that same study Cavalli_Sforza et al clusters Nubians and Moroccans, Sandawe with Serer, Wolof and Peul and San with Somalis, it just doesn't add up. Check out this chart, its totally crap
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras:
As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%, while having only 1% of E-M81.
^Which study attributed those frequencies for Siwa? It must be from the "Jean-Michel Dugoujon" presentation. Nonetheless, this is what we also know about the lineages in the North eastern African corner:
If Luis et al. are anything to go by, the possible appearance of E-M81 in Northwest Africa, came about ~ 2ky:
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in acordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?)...
It is a locus associated with some YAP+ derived lineage(s), that much I know.
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
^I've already pointed out the other flaws of the study having to do with what comprises the sampling "entities", when this chart was posted. I'll see if I can dig out the thread in question. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see some close genetic linkage between "Tuareg" [West African Sahelian Tamazigh speaking] groups, and the Bedawi (Beja speakers). I thought it was interesting that according to a poster going by the "Jomo" username, having wrote to Underhill out of curiousity about which groups Underhill detected E-M81 in Sudan, that he was told that it occurred in two Beja subjects.
I understand what you're saying, but in that same study Cavalli_Sforza et al clusters Nubians and Moroccans, Sandawe with Serer, Wolof and Peul and San with Somalis, it just doesn't add up. Check out this chart, its totally crap
I understand that this is presumably derived from 'autosomal' markers, because I've never been sure of what markers were used here. Even in terms of autosomes, the idea of being able to clearly discern populations from common ancestry but which would otherwise have become geographically distant for a considerable amount of time, needs to at least be questioned.
Ps - Yeap, it appears that E3a, M2 which is associated with the sY81 site, is also known by the locus designation of "DYS271".
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
At any rate, you said
quote:
I think the first thing people need to be aware of when referring to "Berbers" is that it is the French who first came to call the Kabyles and other fair-skinned peoples by the term Berber.
From where did the French develop this term? When and at specifically whom, did the French apply? Please provide primary specific sources, if you will.
If you can discuss this off-topic issue here, then I see no reason why it can't be discussed on-topic in a topic that actually addresses the issue. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Thank you for your response and for informing of the place where this can be discussed. Unfortunately, most of the questions you asked can not be answered thoroughly in a few paragraphs. However, I would like to state the region I am mentioning the multi-cultural origins and some written traditions of the remote origins of the original Berber-speakers or first peoples to be called Berber.
In order for one to study any population genetically, we can all agree the proper population sets and control factors would have to be present. Most studies of DNA are done on populations assumed to be biologically monolithic or unilinearly evolved, - such as the "Berbers", "Fulani" or "West Africans" "sub-saharan Africans" or "Native Americans". As "scholars" have tended to do this haphazardly, African ethnohistory is liable to get even more distorted than previously. Such has been the case with the people who have come to be classified as "Berbers". When in truth as I mentioned the peoples the French and other Europeans today call Berbers, the modern Berber speakers, include peoples of various biological ethnic and cultural origins who happen to speak similar dialects of the "Berber group.
Berbers are no more a race than peoples of India or the Middle East. In fact, as the earlier cranial and osteological studies, DNA studies have related some of them to Eurasians, others to Portuguese/Iberians and the Tuarek to Bedja and other Africans - depending on the region. Most of these genetic scholars are ignorant of the documented movement of various peoples into North Africa in ancient and modern times, such as the Iranians, Turks, Levantines and slaves from North and South of the Berber Mauri) which have contributed to the original Berber areas of habitation.
In a similar vein, Fulani or Peul speakers in he midst of West Africa should show affiliation and physiognomical similarities to peoples of the West African area they have mixed with. The same can not be said of the pastoral or so called red Fulani living further north who are obviously less mixed with "West Africans" as you call them and show close physiognomies and osteological connections to Northeast Africans or Cushitic- speakers.
In any case, if you have questions with regard to the origins of the term "Berber" as used through time please see the biography for the article by Dana Reynolds in GOLDEN AGE OF THE MOOR. I will also try to answer some of your other questions in the section of postings you have provided.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
Sorry to be so verbose, but I forgot to mention another frequently missed point. The fact that there are few people left in Arabia with DNA similar to Tuarek and Bedja says absolutely nothing of those ancient populations. The Tuarek and other tribes that left into Africa brought their names and DNA with them, those that remained have since mixed with other people.
Modern Arabian populations if we look at historical documents are descendants of Arabians who mixed with their servile people and mercenary peoples. One example are the notoriously black Banu Suleim so called "pure Arabs" from the Nejd who were mixing with their Byzantine and Spanish concubines and slaves as early as the 9th and 10th century AD according to the Iraqi author of the time al Jahiz.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
quote:Supercar:
At any rate, you said
quote:qoucela:
I think the first thing people need to be aware of when referring to "Berbers" is that it is the French who first came to call the Kabyles and other fair-skinned peoples by the term Berber.
From where did the French develop this term? When and at specifically whom, did the French apply? Please provide primary specific sources, if you will.
....If you can discuss this off-topic issue here, then I see no reason why it can't be discussed on-topic in a topic that actually addresses the issue.
Thank you for your response and for informing of the place where this can be discussed.
All you have to do is click on the link, and answer the questions I've asked.
quote:qoucela:
Unfortunately, most of the questions you asked can not be answered thoroughly in a few paragraphs.
I can be a very patient man, providing that it is worth the wait, i.e. when answers fulfill the requests made.
quote:qoucela:
However, I would like to state the region I am mentioning the multi-cultural origins and some written traditions of the remote origins of the original Berber-speakers or first peoples to be called Berber.
Well, by the time people who have come to be the people 'originally' called "Berbers" were called so, they were already diverse. That is a non-issue.
quote:qoucela:
In order for one to study any population genetically, we can all agree the proper population sets and control factors would have to be present. Most studies of DNA are done on populations assumed to be biologically monolithic or unilinearly evolved, - such as the "Berbers", "Fulani" or "West Africans" "sub-saharan Africans" or "Native Americans".
I haven't read anything yet that suggests that this is the norm, in terms of expectations of researchers when deciding to undertake population genetics. It is usually anticipated that multiple origins are likely to be found among and between populations.
quote: As "scholars" have tended to do this haphazardly, African ethnohistory is liable to get even more distorted than previously. Such has been the case with the people who have come to be classified as "Berbers". When in truth as I mentioned the peoples the French and other Europeans today call Berbers, the modern Berber speakers, include peoples of various biological ethnic and cultural origins who happen to speak similar dialects of the "Berber group. Berbers are no more a race than peoples of India or the Middle East.
This is old news on this board, i.e. the diverse bio-cultural base of "Berbers", as we know them 'today'.
quote:qoucela:
In fact, as the earlier cranial and osteological studies, DNA studies have related some of them to Eurasians, others to Portuguese/Iberians and the Tuarek to Bedja and other Africans - depending on the region. Most of these genetic scholars are ignorant of the documented movement of various peoples into North Africa in ancient and modern times, such as the Iranians, Turks, Levantines and slaves from North and South of the Berber Mauri) which have contributed to the original Berber areas of habitation.
In a similar vein, Fulani or Peul speakers in he midst of West Africa should show affiliation and physiognomical similarities to peoples of the West African area they have mixed with. The same can not be said of the pastoral or so called red Fulani living further north who are obviously less mixed with "West Africans" as you call them and show close physiognomies and osteological connections to Northeast Africans or Cushitic- speakers.
Fulani are 'west Africans', as is even "Berber" groups, whether coastal or Sahelian. There is nothing wrong with saying that. But more importantly, what source are you basing the highlighted statement on? Please share it with those of us who are interested in knowing.
quote:qoucela:
In any case, if you have questions with regard to the origins of the term "Berber" as used through time please see the biography for the article by Dana Reynolds in GOLDEN AGE OF THE MOOR. I will also try to answer some of your other questions in the section of postings you have provided.
Have you gone through the said publication? If so, then simply answer my questions, which would be quite appreciated. The said publication [while related to the subject] has no bearings on the outstanding questions; just the answers that relevantly address the questions, as it relates to 'etymological' issues will suffice. You may do so in the link I provided. You can answer the 'genetic' issue herein though. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Sorry to be so verbose, but I forgot to mention another frequently missed point. The fact that there are few people left in Arabia with DNA similar to Tuarek and Bedja says absolutely nothing of those ancient populations.
This is incorrect. The problem with what you are sayin here isn't merely that Taureg lineages are 'rare' in Arabia.
Rather the problem is that the lineages that predominate in the Taureg don't originate in Arabia to begin with.
They are native to Africa, just like the Taureg.
Are you familiar with haplogroup E, which makes up 90% plus of Taureg male lineage?
What can you tell us about it?
If you'd like us to relate information regarding this, please ask and we'll do so.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ^I've already pointed out the other flaws of the study having to do with what comprises the sampling "entities", when this chart was posted. I'll see if I can dig out the thread in question. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see some close genetic linkage between "Tuareg" [West African Sahelian Tamazigh speaking] groups, and the Bedawi (Beja speakers). I thought it was interesting that according to a poster going by the "Jomo" username, having wrote to Underhill out of curiousity about which groups Underhill detected E-M81 in Sudan, that he was told that it occurred in two Beja subjects.
I understand what you're saying, but in that same study Cavalli_Sforza et al clusters Nubians and Moroccans, Sandawe with Serer, Wolof and Peul and San with Somalis, it just doesn't add up. Check out this chart, its totally crap
It seems funny for me to defending Sforza, because I have much beef with him, but his charts aren't total crap, and I doubt any geneticist would dismiss his admittedly dated work so blithly.
Specifically - I believe what he kept finding in some of his autosomal studies, is ancient relationships based on older population affinities, which actually can be understood [sometimes] in terms of later information.
For example:
Nubians and Morrocans: E3b1. San with Somalis: underived E3b. Wolof and Fulani: uh, that one is self evident.
I do know that Sforza is both Eurocentrist and oft cited by Eurocentrists though, so I realise the 'tricky' nature of my position with regards to him. Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia. The concept of lineage origination in genetics is not that cut and dry especially when ethnohistorical documentation is ignored. I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of JordanPalestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
The Tahunian and Neolithic B was definitely linked with the Fayum- Merimde complex and thus the North African Tjehenu culture of that area. The later Pan-Grave culture of the Medjayu (Bedja) shows a strong connection to the earlier Tehama Arabian culture.
One does not have to be afraid that the Arabian connection of the Tuarek and other Afro-Asiatics denies their African affiliation or remote origins on the African continent.
The Tuarek claim of an ancestry in Arabian and Syro-Canaanite origin reverberated by Al Yaquubi and many others since that area should be taken seriously considering the many clan names of the Taureg today - including Mazuragh (Beni Mazurah, from ancient Misrata, Musuri) and Imaslagha or Laguatin(probably the ancient Amlakhu or Meluchha), Makitan (Macetae, Ketama, Uakutameni, ancient Khetim) and the use of the term Ait(Ad) preceeding their names to name just a few of dozens.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Sorry to be so verbose, but I forgot to mention another frequently missed point. The fact that there are few people left in Arabia with DNA similar to Tuarek and Bedja says absolutely nothing of those ancient populations.
This is incorrect. The problem with what you are sayin here isn't merely that Taureg lineages are 'rare' in Arabia.
Rather the problem is that the lineages that predominate in the Taureg don't originate in Arabia to begin with.
They are native to Africa, just like the Taureg.
Are you familiar with haplogroup E, which makes up 90% plus of Taureg male lineage?
What can you tell us about it?
If you'd like us to relate information regarding this, please ask and we'll do so.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Of course we do. How do you think TMRCA is attained? What do microsatellite diversity, sub-clade diversity and frequency distribution, and level of microsatellite differentiation mean to you?
quote:qoucela:
The concept of lineage origination in genetics is not that cut and dry especially when ethnohistorical documentation is ignored.
I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of JordanPalestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
Yes, the south Arabian cultures like the Tihama have been deemed to have some associations with East Africa, with contribution coming largely from the African side. As for the rest of 'southwest Asia", the Neolithic agricultural revolution of the Levantine region was largely an in situ development, having occurred after population flows from the Nile Valley, along with new lithic cultures. With this spread, came proto-Afrasan languages that would form the basis of the Semitic languages now spoken in the region. These populations are characterized by YAP+ E-M215 chromosomes - again, marking "East African" contribution, as opposed to "southwest Asian" origin.
quote:qoucela:
The Tahunian and Neolithic B was definitely linked with the Fayum- Merimde complex and thus the North African Tjehenu culture of that area. The later Pan-Grave culture of the Medjayu (Bedja) shows a strong connection to the earlier Tehama Arabian culture.
See post above, about the East African connection of south Arabian complexes.
quote:qoucela:
One does not have to be afraid that the Arabian connection of the Tuarek and other Afro-Asiatics denies their African affiliation or remote origins on the African continent.
There is no evidence whatsoever that "Tuaregs" and other "Afrasan" [you know it as "Afro-Asiatic] groups originate in "Arabia". It is in fact the other way around, with Afrasan groups of 'southwest Asia" ultimately deriving from East Africa. However, I'm all ears, as to how you intend to genetically back this up.
Tuaregs, like other "Berber" speaking groups, are characterized by the M81 signature, as a characteristic "Berber" marker, in addition to other E-M215 chromosomes [see Cruciani et al. 2007], which again are deemed to be of Eastern African provenance, not southwest Asia. No evidence of E-M81 signature in "Arabia".
quote:qoucela:
The Tuarek claim of an ancestry in Arabian and Syro-Canaanite origin reverberated by Al Yaquubi and many others since that area should be taken seriously considering the many clan names of the Taureg today - including Mazuragh (Beni Mazurah, from ancient Misrata, Musuri) and Imaslagha or Laguatin(probably the ancient Amlakhu or Meluchha), Makitan (Macetae, Ketama, Uakutameni, ancient Khetim) and the use of the term Ait(Ad) preceeding their names to name just a few of dozens.
Don't know about each and every Tuareg groups oral history of where they originate, but its already been noted here before that this isn't generally true, i.e. claims of ancestry from south Arabia. Tuaregs are in fact amongst the "Berber" groups who have the least extra-African input. Many have predominantly East African E-M215 and west African lineages [in terms of M2, and perhaps M33 lineages]. The same goes for the mtDNA, in terms of the African provenances.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Respectfully, this is not and accurate statement either.
In fact it's a not atypical comment of those very unfamiliar with genetics.
The basic principal of modern population genetics is that your blood carries your history.
We can tell a goodly amount about the ancient historical physical relationships between any two populations by examining their current dna.
DNA is biological history.
You are well intended and make many good remarks.
So I will add some information about haplogroup E which hoepfully you will find useful.
Halogroup E originated in Africa 45 thousand years ago.
Outside of Africa this halogroup and all it's pre mesolithic variations are almost uknown.
There are serveral subgroups
E1, E2 and E3, further E3 is divisible to E3a and E3b.
E1 and E2 originate in the sahel and are 'almost' non existent outside Africa.
E3 originates in East Africa and splits into E3a which branches off into West Africa and E3b which is East African.
E3b spread from East and SouthEast Africa into West Africa, SouthWest Asia and Europe.
By contrast, in Arabia the most common lineage is J. J is considered native to WestEurasia. E3b and E3a are present in lower levels and denote "African admixture" in Arabs.
Understand then that Taureg have overwhelming E lineages and a very high amount of E1/E2 which are native to the Sahel from 40 thousand years back.
They have relatively little non African paternal lineage and what little they do have likely reflect post Islamic Arabian admixtures.
Therefore they do *not* come from Arabia.
Arabia is the most over-rated - in terms of genetic ancestry - region of the world for Africans, because many Muslims, including some Hausa Nigerian, try to trace their ancesty back to Mohammad, and some Jews try to trace back to King Soloman.
European theorists often exploit this and run with it, but actually at present, no geneticist theorises and Arabian origin for the Taureg because they can be proven genetically to be native to AFrica.
Genetics as ever, is a merciless gadfly to many exotic origin theories which otherwise float around forever, because they are vague and speculative enough that they can not literally be proven nor disproven.
Hope this helps.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: [QUOTE]As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%, while having only 1% of E-M81.
Evergreen Writes:
Which study are you using as a basis for this claim?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
I am actually not sure that this is an accurate assumption. Are you comfortable making this assertion given the limited samples of Fulani from Niger?
i'm comfortable with relating the existing evidence, whatever it may be.
Evergreen Writes:
Here we part ways. My standard is that I am not comfortable making wholesale claims about Sahelian population origins given the paucity of sampling done in many corners of Sahelian Africa (particularly Niger, Chad and parts of Sudan).
Evergreen Posts:
Bidirectional Corridor in the Sahel-Sudan Belt and the Distinctive Features of the Chad Basin Populations: A History Revealed by the Mitochondrial DNA Genome.
Ann Hum Genet. 2007 Jan 17
"It is to be expected that the genetic exploration of still UNKNOWN areas of Eastern Chad and Western Sudan will in the near future enable the drawing aside of the veil on other fascinating stories in this remote part of Africa."
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]the general approach of these studies is to speculate on and exotic origin for the fulani, and most often relate surprise when little or no such indicators are found.
In these cases exotic is equated to: Berber, Egyptian, Arabian, and/or Majik-K'zoid.
Evergreen Writes:
I agree with you here. I also agree that most Fulani lineages derive from the western Sahel.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: The same can not be said of the pastoral or so called red Fulani living further north who are obviously less mixed with "West Africans" as you call them and show close physiognomies and osteological connections to Northeast Africans or Cushitic- speakers.
Evergreen Writes:
Similarity of physiognomy and osteology in no way indicate genetic relatedness. Micro-evolution in the same climatic region (Sahel) would give the illusion of biological affinity. Melanesians migrated out of Africa and retained similarity of physiognomy and osteology with tropical Africans because of micro-evolution in the same climatic region (tropics). Yet genetically a Melanesian is closer to a Chinese Man than a Kenyan.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Evergreen Writes:
Yet there is certainly a process for deducing the phylogeny of Arabia or any other region with living populations.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: The concept of lineage origination in genetics is not that cut and dry especially when ethnohistorical documentation is ignored.
Evergreen Writes:
Likewise, the concept of lineage origination using ethnohistorical documentation is not that cut and dry especially when genetics is ignored. A multidisciplinary approach is best.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of Jordan Palestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
Evergreen Writes:
1. Language and biological affinity are two different things.
2. Afro-Asiatic and Ethio-Arabians (???) are not mutually interchangable terms.
Posted by kifaru (Member # 4698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Respectfully, this is not and accurate statement either.
In fact it's a not atypical comment of those very unfamiliar with genetics.
The basic principal of modern population genetics is that your blood carries your history.
We can tell a goodly amount about the ancient historical physical relationships between any two populations by examining their current dna.
DNA is biological history.
You are well intended and make many good remarks.
So I will add some information about haplogroup E which hoepfully you will find useful.
Halogroup E originated in Africa 45 thousand years ago.
Outside of Africa this halogroup and all it's pre mesolithic variations are almost uknown.
There are serveral subgroups
E1, E2 and E3, further E3 is divisible to E3a and E3b.
E1 and E2 originate in the sahel and are 'almost' non existent outside Africa.
E3 originates in East Africa and splits into E3a which branches off into West Africa and E3b which is East African.
E3b spread from East and SouthEast Africa into West Africa, SouthWest Asia and Europe.
By contrast, in Arabia the most common lineage is J. J is considered native to WestEurasia. E3b and E3a are present in lower levels and denote "African admixture" in Arabs.
Understand then that Taureg have overwhelming E lineages and a very high amount of E1/E2 which are native to the Sahel from 40 thousand years back.
They have relatively little non African paternal lineage and what little they do have likely reflect post Islamic Arabian admixtures.
Therefore they do *not* come from Arabia.
Arabia is the most over-rated - in terms of genetic ancestry - region of the world for Africans, because many Muslims, including some Hausa Nigerian, try to trace their ancesty back to Mohammad, and some Jews try to trace back to King Soloman.
European theorists often exploit this and run with it, but actually at present, no geneticist theorises and Arabian origin for the Taureg because they can be proven genetically to be native to AFrica.
Genetics as ever, is a merciless gadfly to many exotic origin theories which otherwise float around forever, because they are vague and speculative enough that they can not literally be proven nor disproven.
Hope this helps.
I feel compelled to post that this is the most polite and non-bludgeoning response I've seen you give to a person in a long time Rasol. You are to be commeded fo not giving a nasty reply. You sound like a real academic. My compliments to your scholarly reply.
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: [QUOTE]As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%, while having only 1% of E-M81.
Evergreen Writes:
Which study are you using as a basis for this claim?
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ^I've already pointed out the other flaws of the study having to do with what comprises the sampling "entities", when this chart was posted. I'll see if I can dig out the thread in question. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see some close genetic linkage between "Tuareg" [West African Sahelian Tamazigh speaking] groups, and the Bedawi (Beja speakers). I thought it was interesting that according to a poster going by the "Jomo" username, having wrote to Underhill out of curiousity about which groups Underhill detected E-M81 in Sudan, that he was told that it occurred in two Beja subjects.
I understand what you're saying, but in that same study Cavalli_Sforza et al clusters Nubians and Moroccans, Sandawe with Serer, Wolof and Peul and San with Somalis, it just doesn't add up. Check out this chart, its totally crap
It seems funny for me to defending Sforza, because I have much beef with him, but his charts aren't total crap, and I doubt any geneticist would dismiss his admittedly dated work so blithly.
Specifically - I believe what he kept finding in some of his autosomal studies, is ancient relationships based on older population affinities, which actually can be understood [sometimes] in terms of later information.
For example:
Nubians and Morrocans: E3b1. San with Somalis: underived E3b. Wolof and Fulani: uh, that one is self evident.
I do know that Sforza is both Eurocentrist and oft cited by Eurocentrists though, so I realise the 'tricky' nature of my position with regards to him.
mayne that atuosomal dendogram is full of contradictions, Somalis have little to no E3b* and Sandawe have never clustered with West Africans in any study. Given the bidirectional geneflow in the Nile Valley, Nubians should be clustering closest to the Egyptians rather than Moroccans, there is no way Cavalli-Sforza's dendogram can be defended.
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: [QUOTE]As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%, while having only 1% of E-M81.
Evergreen Writes:
Which study are you using as a basis for this claim?
Its B-M109, not 106
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:mayne that atuosomal dendogram is full of contradictions, Somalis have little to no E3b*
According to: Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa Somali have E3B* at 17 %, whereas San have E3b* at between 12% and 35%.
^ note: i'm not trying to use Cruciani's new private nomenclatures because I don't understand it yet.
So, if you are going to relate based on this, you will need to explain to me the exact relationship between Somilian and SouthEast African E3b, and how it cannot be linked to the autosomal affinities between Somalians and South/South East Africans.
This is especially required if you are claiming that no such affinity exists...which is the bases for calling it a contradiction from Sforza, correct?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Sandawe have never clustered with West Africans in any study.
Sandawe live in Tanzania among mostly Bantu, of west African origin, and consequently Sandawe have E3A as well as E3b.
Are you saying that it is a contradiction to find autosomal affinity between Sandawe and West Africans?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of JordanPalestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
Evergreen Writes:
This points out the need for a better understanding of SE European and SW Asian archaeology and biological anthropology. We now know that paleolithic NE Africans and Neolithic Levantines had cranial and likely biological affinities with Sub-Saharan Africans. We know that the "neolithic" led to the advent of complex societies or "civilization" in SE Europea and SW Asia. We also know that the "neolithic" was a long evolving process (not an event) that spread from tropical Africa into Eurasia during the late Pliestocene from the Nile Valley. Hence we know that complex society in SE Europe and SW Asia is rooted in technological and psycho-spiritual advances derived among the Black peoples of Africa. We know this. The next step in the evolution of our understanding is to develop a fuller picture of back-migration and change in SE Europe and SW Asia during the post Natufian/pre-dynastic period. When did "Asiatic" types supplant "Negroid" Natufians in the Levant. Did central Europeans flow back down into SE Europe and Anatolia during the late Neolithic? Who were tha Nabateans? Why do Yemeni men have such low frequencies of haplogroup E3b, etc.?
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:mayne that atuosomal dendogram is full of contradictions, Somalis have little to no E3b*
According to: Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa Somali have E3B* at 17 %, whereas San have E3b* at between 12% and 35%.
^ note: i'm not trying to use Cruciani's new private nomenclatures because I don't understand it yet.
So, if you are going to relate based on this, you will need to explain to me the exact relationship between Somilian and SouthEast African E3b, and how it cannot be linked to the autosomal affinities between Somalians and South/South East Africans.
This is especially required if you are claiming that no such affinity exists...which is the bases for calling it a contradiction from Sforza, correct?
I took my E3b* from a study on Somalis where it was found at 1.5%. Even with 17% from the study you took your figure from it makes no sense for San to cluster with Somalis, it would make a better case for Ethiopians since they share haplogroup A Ethiopians and or Bantu speakers, since they have E3a also. I made no claims that there wasn't any affinity, just that southern African San clustering closer to Somalis is spurious
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Sandawe have never clustered with West Africans in any study.
Sandawe live in Tanzania among mostly Bantu, of west African origin, and consequently Sandawe have E3A as well as E3b.
Are you saying that it is a contradiction to find autosomal affinity between Sandawe and West Africans?
This doesn't make any sense, for by that logic they should cluster closer to Bantu speakers than to West Africans like Serer and Wolof, mayne it still makes no sense in the same way its senseless for him to say Nubians cluster closer to Moroccans than other Nile Valley populations.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Not necessarily, Wolof also have E3b1 and M1, Sandawe have E3b, this means they have a common East African component which may be distinct and in addition to the E3a component that they share with some Bantu.
Also we have to be careful with dendrograms and the physical distance they display.
I'd like to see the point to point fst distance between each paired groups, expressed as and integer.
I have Sforza History/Geography, and Genes/Languages volumes, so I'll see if I can dig up some data.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: I made no claims that there wasn't any affinity, just that southern African San clustering closer to Somalis is spurious
I don't know. San either have a specific ancestral relationship with East Africans or they do not.
And there have been several post Sforza claims that they in fact, do so, including from Tishkoff and others. Somali have more E3b* than some other Ethiopian groups as well...so perhaps thats a factor.
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: I made no claims that there wasn't any affinity, just that southern African San clustering closer to Somalis is spurious
I don't know. San either have a specific ancestral relationship with East Africans or they are not.
And there have been several post Sforza claims that they in fact, do so, including from Tishkoff and others. Somali have more E3b* than some other Ethiopian groups as well...so perhaps thats a factor.
Cavalli-Sforza mad the yet again spurious claim that San are a mixture sub-Saharan African and Southwest Asian, that old 1994 work of his suspect.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Yes, I completely agree and have written about this before.
What Sforza doesn't know in 1994 is that E3b spread from East and South East AFrica, into SouthWest Asia and Europe.
I believe that's why he found this affinity between San, East Africans, and Europeans.
Of course he attributed it to K-zoid race Majik, which is where he was wrong.
Sforza is not and incompetent geneticist, he was quite brilliant.....but he is biased as perhaps 'most'(?) European geneticists are.
So, we have to glean the gems from his data, and play past the bias.
But I admit that this is tough to do. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
I notice some correlations being made between 'autosomal' marker findings and Y chromosome markers. I can understand that this is being rationaled to the extent of invoking the last shared common ancestry between said groups; however what I cannot understand, is to assume that autosomal markers would be effective in clearly discerning this as does the Y chromosomes, and somehow show that geographically closer populations with historic documentations of intermingling can be relatively more genetically distant [via autosomal analysis] than any two given populations who have considerably been separated from one another in both a spatial and temporal sense.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:mayne that atuosomal dendogram is full of contradictions, Somalis have little to no E3b*
According to: Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa Somali have E3B* at 17 %, whereas San have E3b* at between 12% and 35%.
^ note: i'm not trying to use Cruciani's new private nomenclatures because I don't understand it yet.
So, if you are going to relate based on this, you will need to explain to me the exact relationship between Somilian and SouthEast African E3b, and how it cannot be linked to the autosomal affinities between Somalians and South/South East Africans.
I think the question should rather be: how does the TMRCA, as attested to by E3b, can be linked to genetic distance found between populations, especially when they have been separated for a considerable time, naturally in addition to geographical & corresponding cultural separation?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Supercar
quote: I think the question should rather be: how does the TMRCA, as attested to by E3b, can be linked to genetic distance found between populations, especially when they have been separated for a considerable time, naturally in addition to geographical & corresponding cultural separation?
The major problem with dating the rate of separation of these groups is that much of the dating for the TMRCA for these groups was much later than many people on the forum assume.
First of all the Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and etc. speakers originally lived in Nubia, as a result it is obvious that these groups although spread from West to East Africa would share many genetic features, and the genetic distance between populations would not be as great as many researchers assume.
The Bantu, Wolof etc. are not the original settlers of the places they now live. Using place names Diop early illustrated that these people formerly lived further East. In addition , the oral traditions of these people speak of "small blacks" living in these areas when the present inhabitants arrived on the scene.
The archaeological, linguistic and other data make it clear that the TMRCA for the speakers of most Black African speakers was probably 8000-6000ybp.
.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Supercar
quote: I think the question should rather be: how does the TMRCA, as attested to by E3b, can be linked to genetic distance found between populations, especially when they have been separated for a considerable time, naturally in addition to geographical & corresponding cultural separation?
The major problem with dating the rate of separation of these groups is that much of the dating for the TMRCA for these groups was much later than many people on the forum assume.
Do you know how TMRCA of Y chromosome markers are reached? Please elaborate on how TMRCA, as discerned from these markers, doesn't approximate to the time of the most recent common ancestor, but rather TMRCA is 'much later than many people on the forum assume'.
quote:Clyde Winters:
First of all the Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and etc. speakers originally lived in Nubia, as a result it is obvious that these groups although spread from West to East Africa would share many genetic features, and the genetic distance between populations would not be as great as many researchers assume.
That humanity likely arose on the eastern corner of Africa is a well known idea. So, apparently people who now dwell in the western, northern and southern ends of the continent had to have moved there at some point.
quote: The Bantu, Wolof etc. are not the original settlers of the places they now live. Using place names Diop early illustrated that these people formerly lived further East. In addition , the oral traditions of these people speak of "small blacks" living in these areas when the present inhabitants arrived on the scene.
See prior post.
quote:Clyde Winters:
The archaeological, linguistic and other data make it clear that the TMRCA for the speakers of most Black African speakers was probably 8000-6000ybp.
According to whom, from a genetic standpoint? What marker was used to come up with this singular TMRCA and dating?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: [QUOTE]As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%...
Evergreen Writes:
It would be of interest to know which sub-clade of E3a was found in Siwa and other parts of the Eastern Sahara and Nile Valley. This area of research is still in its infancy in comparison to the delineation of E3b*. The lower frequency of E3a in the Siwa oasis area could relate to limited population subsistence potential during the mid-holocene dry phase. Potential Saharan populations packing would have been greater along the Nile Valley than in the oasis areas where more ancient hunter-gather populations retained land.
Evergreen Posts:
Sub-populations within the major European and African derived haplogroups R1b3 and E3a are differentiated by previously phylogenetically undefined Y-SNPs.
Hum Mutat. 2007 Jan;28(1):97
Single nucleotide polymorphisms on the Y chromosome (Y-SNPs) have been widely used in the study of human migration patterns and evolution. Potential forensic applications of Y-SNPs include their use in predicting the ethnogeographic origin of the donor of a crime scene sample, or exclusion of suspects of sexual assaults (the evidence of which often comprises male/female mixtures and may involve multiple perpetrators), paternity testing, and identification of non- and half-siblings. In this study, we used a population of 118 African- and 125 European-Americans to evaluate 12 previously phylogenetically undefined Y-SNPs for their ability to further differentiate individuals who belong to the major African (E3a)- and European (R1b3, I)-derived haplogroups. Ten of these markers define seven new sub-clades (equivalent to E3a7a, E3a8, E3a8a, E3a8a1, R1b3h, R1b3i, and R1b3i1 using the Y Chromosome Consortium nomenclature) within haplogroups E and R. Interestingly, during the course of this study we evaluated M222, a sub-R1b3 marker rarely used, and found that this sub-haplogroup in effect defines the Y-STR Irish Modal Haplotype (IMH). The new bi-allelic markers described here are expected to find application in human evolutionary studies and forensic genetics.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] I notice some correlations being made between 'autosomal' marker findings and Y chromosome markers. I can understand that this is being rationaled to the extent of invoking the last shared common ancestry between said groups; however what I cannot understand, is to assume that autosomal markers would be effective in clearly discerning this as does the Y chromosomes
They don't.
It's and oversimplication of course but try looking at autosomes as measuring distance, and sex chromosome as measuring origin.
They are two interdependant, but nontheless distinct properties.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by qoucela:
No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Of course we do. How do you think TMRCA is attained? What do microsatellite diversity, sub-clade diversity and frequency distribution, and level of microsatellite differentiation mean to you?
Well, I think they should mean very little if we can't acknowledge the fact that there have been population movements and migration in the past that may have led to wide difference in genetic and biological makeup between a couple thousand years ago and now. My whole point here is that biological populations within demographic areas move and change.
Judging from your response, you must also have seen some DNA studies concluding that most modern populations in Arabia are directly evolved from ancient populations in Arabia. I would like to view them.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
quote:qoucela:
The concept of lineage origination in genetics is not that cut and dry especially when ethnohistorical documentation is ignored.
I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of JordanPalestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
Yes, the south Arabian cultures like the Tihama have been deemed to have some associations with East Africa, with contribution coming largely from the African side. As for the rest of 'southwest Asia", the Neolithic agricultural revolution of the Levantine region was largely an in situ development, having occurred after population flows from the Nile Valley, along with new lithic cultures. With this spread, came proto-Afrasan languages that would form the basis of the Semitic languages now spoken in the region. These populations are characterized by YAP+ E-M215 chromosomes - again, marking "East African" contribution, as opposed to "southwest Asian" origin.
I am glad you have helped confirm my belief in the East African origins of the Syro-Canaanite peoples. So why is it so hard to fathom that such people could not have moved back into Africa a few thousand years ago as their own traditions claim they did.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]Well, I think they should mean very little if we can't acknowledge the fact that there have been population movements and migration in the past that may have led to wide difference in genetic and biological makeup between a couple thousand years ago and now. My whole point here is that biological populations within demographic areas move and change.
Judging from your response, you must also have seen some DNA studies concluding that most modern populations in Arabia are directly evolved from ancient populations in Arabia. I would like to view them.
Evergreen Writes:
The issue is NOT about modern populations in Arabia deriving directly from ancient populations in Arabia. The issue is about your claim that modern Tuareg derive in the maind from ancient Arabians. There is NO evidence to support this.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]As for the rest of 'southwest Asia", the Neolithic agricultural revolution of the Levantine region was largely an in situ development....
Evergreen Writes:
It is of interest that you would characterize the Near Eastern Neolithic as "the Neolithic agricultural revolution". What made this process revolutionary?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The major problem with dating the rate of separation of these groups is that much of the dating for the TMRCA for these groups was much later than many people on the forum assume.
I don't quite follow this, but let's continue...
quote: First of all the Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and etc. speakers originally lived in Nubia,
What is the basis for originating Niger-Congo language in Nubia?
quote: as a result it is obvious that these groups although spread from West to East Africa would share many genetic features
This is definitely the case, regardless of where in Africa they originate.
quote: and the genetic distance between populations would not be as great as many researchers assume.
Not really. I've tried to explain genetic distance in Africa in terms of physical distances in geography.
The average distance between major cities in Russia is over 10 times greater than the average distance between major cities in Western Europe.
Many large cities on the western border of Russia are closer to larger European cities than they are to cities on the Eastern borders of Russia.
How can this be?
Does it make sense?
Of course it does.
This is simply because Russia is vastly larger physically than Western Europe. It may be that two Russian cities, a part of the nation of Russia, and founded by Russians and therefore equally Russian by any sane definition of the word, are nonetheless, over a thousand miles away from each other. In contrast to Sweden for instance where the cities are physically quite close to each other.
The same thing goes for Africa. Africa is vastly larger GENETICALLY than say, Europe.
To San speakers from Southern Africa carrying Y chromosome hapoltype A, might show enormous distance from each other genetically, while also showing the same paternal lineage A.
Haplotype A is like Russia - it's huge, and it's ancient. It was accumulating distinction in different Khoisan [and other] groups for 10's of thousands of years before any non African haplgroups even existed.
This is rather difficult to understand I know, so I hope my analogy helps. Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]So why is it so hard to fathom that such people could not have moved back into Africa a few thousand years ago as their own traditions claim they did.
Evergreen Writes:
Back migration of E3b* carrying Greeks, Arabs, and Turks have had a huge impact on North Africa within the last few thousand years. This is part of the reason we see such diversity in North Africa today. However, the primary origin of the Tuareg is not found with this back flow.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Well, I think they should mean very little if we can't acknowledge the fact that there have been population movements and migration in the past that may have led to wide difference in genetic and biological makeup between a couple thousand years ago and now
The above is red hering, because everyone acknolwedges this, an acknolwedging this doesn't validate your claim.
People move around - yes.
Genetic frequencies change - yes.
Taureg are recent migrant from Arabia - no.
Why?
Because they have genetic lineages which originate in Africa 40 thousand years ago, and, and this part is important to try to understand - are *the same* ancient lineages that other Africans living in the sahara have, and which are not found in Arabia.
To simplify, Taureg and other Black Africans have the same ancestry.
Arabians have different ancestry.
No matter how many hypothetical games we play, with imaginary population migrations rooted in selective interpretations of dubious Islamic mytho-lineages [and equally selective dismissals of Taureg legends to the contrary of 'the hypothesis'], there is simply no getting around this fact.
Taureg are genetically African.
They are not genetically Arabian.
There is genetic evidence of their African origin.
There is none to suggest that they *ever* lived in Arabia, or that could even suggest a coherent theory of how that would *even be possible.*
It is worth noting as and aside, that linguists regard the progenator of Berber languages as originating in the Horn/Sudan region in the Holocene, and that Berber languages do not exist East of the Nile, much less outside of Africa.
So genetics is consistent with linguistic data in this regard.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
quote:qoucela:
One does not have to be afraid that the Arabian connection of the Tuarek and other Afro-Asiatics denies their African affiliation or remote origins on the African continent.
There is no evidence whatsoever that "Tuaregs" and other "Afrasan" [you know it as "Afro-Asiatic] groups originate in "Arabia". It is in fact the other way around, with Afrasan groups of 'southwest Asia" ultimately deriving from East Africa. However, I'm all ears, as to how you intend to genetically back this up.
Tuaregs, like other "Berber" speaking groups, are characterized by the M81 signature, as a characteristic "Berber" marker, in addition to other E-M215 chromosomes [see Cruciani et al. 2007], which again are deemed to be of Eastern African provenance, not southwest Asia. No evidence of E-M81 signature in "Arabia".
I'm already aware that the new genetic studies are confirming that the original Berbers were of east African affiliation. But the newest genetic studies are not confirming any more than what earlier studies of genetically determined dental and cranial traits had already concluded. But, even earlier physical anthropology scholarship could distinguish between modern populations of a particular region and ancient ones. Since the modern are rather oriented toward biological relationships between simultaneously populations they are not the best resource for making the determinations about the whereabouts of people 3000 years ago.
quote:qoucela:
The Tuarek claim of an ancestry in Arabian and Syro-Canaanite origin reverberated by Al Yaquubi and many others since that area should be taken seriously...
/QUOTE]Don't know about each and every Tuareg groups oral history of where they originate, but its already been noted here before that this isn't generally true, i.e. claims of ancestry from south Arabia. Tuaregs are in fact amongst the "Berber" groups who have the least extra-African input. Many have predominantly East African E-M215 and west African lineages [in terms of M2, and perhaps M33 lineages]. The same goes for the mtDNA, in terms of the African provenances. [/QB]
Again, I am not claiming Tuaregs or the original Berber population are not biologically affiliated with Africans. I am claiming it is not inconceivable that the direct ancestors of the Tuareg may have been those African populations occupying the Syro-Arabian area 3 -4 thousand years ago. Or, for that matter that the original population Kabyle population could have migrated to Africa from a more northerly region over 2500 years ago.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: I am claiming it is not inconceivable that the direct ancestors of the Tuareg may have been those African populations occupying the Syro-Arabian area 3 -4 thousand years ago.
^ Inconceivable is a weasel word. It's not inconceivable that the pyramids were built by aliens instead of egyptians.
The problem is, there is no evidence for either of these two far fetched claims.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by qoucela: No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Respectfully, this is not and accurate statement either.
In fact it's a not atypical comment of those very unfamiliar with genetics.
The basic principal of modern population genetics is that your blood carries your history.
We can tell a goodly amount about the ancient historical physical relationships between any two populations by examining their current dna.
DNA is biological history...
Hope this helps. ________________________________________ Hi there. Yes, it does help me in understanding how high in regard the new genetic scholarship is held and influencing those interested in the history and contributions of ancient African related peoples. Unfortunately, I also agree with you that DNA focuses mainly on biological history and can not say much in regard to ancient population movement, linguistic or cultural history.
For example, if my mother's MtDNA were to show that her ancestors were related to the Yoruba of Nigeria, that may say nothing of where the Yoruba were at the time her African American ancestors left Africa, or even what dialect was spoken unless we had aware of oral tradition or historical documents testifying to where they were.
And if her MtDNA might show a connection to modern Dumphries Scotland, that would say nothing of the population was located when they immigrated to America.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Unfortunately, I also agree with you that DNA focuses mainly on biological history and can not say much in regard to ancient population movement
^ I know of no geneticist, linguist, physical anthropologist, or archeoligist who would support this statement.
Most modern non genetic historical scientist incorporate genetics into their discipline.
They do not attempt to ignore it, and advance theory contradicted by genetics.
Science progresses. Genetics is here. We have to use this tool, and not run from it, while citing myths and legends as pseudo-evidence in opposition of it.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]Unfortunately, I also agree with you that DNA focuses mainly on biological history and can not say much in regard to ancient population movement, linguistic or cultural history.
Evergreen Writes:
Actually this is untrue. DNA can tell us much about ancient population movement, linguistics and cultural history when studied in a multidisciplinary fashion. Please lay out the multidisciplinary model that supports Tuareg origins in SW Asia ~4,000 years ago?
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
On the contrary, although similarity of physiognomy and osteology can not verify genetic relationship it certain can be an indication of one!
Unfortunately, I will not be able to respond fully to the rest of your assertions unless you make clear which Melanesians, Kenyans, etc. you are talking about. Surely you are not saying the indigenous Fijians and the so-called Negritos of Papua are the same people biologically although they and the ancestors of the Chinese may have had some genetic exchange in the recent past between themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: The same can not be said of the pastoral or so called red Fulani living further north who are obviously less mixed with "West Africans" as you call them and show close physiognomies and osteological connections to Northeast Africans or Cushitic- speakers.
Evergreen Writes:
Similarity of physiognomy and osteology in no way indicate genetic relatedness. Micro-evolution in the same climatic region (Sahel) would give the illusion of biological affinity. Melanesians migrated out of Africa and retained similarity of physiognomy and osteology with tropical Africans because of micro-evolution in the same climatic region (tropics). Yet genetically a Melanesian is closer to a Chinese Man than a Kenyan.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Actually this is untrue. DNA can tell us much about ancient population movement, linguistics and cultural history when studied in a multidisciplinary fashion. Please lay out the multidisciplinary model that supports Tuareg origins in SW Asia ~4,000 years ago?
^ i 2nd the request. 4 thousand years ago in the lavantine, no taureg texts, no taureg language, no taureg archology cites, no taureg culture, and oh yes... no taureg genetic lineages.
quote:Unfortunately, I will not be able to respond fully to the rest of your assertions unless you make clear which Melanesians, Kenyans, etc. you are talking about
^ take your pick.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]Well, I think they should mean very little if we can't acknowledge the fact that there have been population movements and migration in the past that may have led to wide difference in genetic and biological makeup between a couple thousand years ago and now. My whole point here is that biological populations within demographic areas move and change.
Judging from your response, you must also have seen some DNA studies concluding that most modern populations in Arabia are directly evolved from ancient populations in Arabia. I would like to view them.
Evergreen Writes:
The issue is NOT about modern populations in Arabia deriving directly from ancient populations in Arabia. The issue is about your claim that modern Tuareg derive in the maind from ancient Arabians. There is NO evidence to support this.
----------------------------------------- Thanks for informing me of what the issue is not about, and remember those are your words, not mine.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
I notice some correlations being made between 'autosomal' marker findings and Y chromosome markers. I can understand that this is being rationaled to the extent of invoking the last shared common ancestry between said groups; however what I cannot understand, is to assume that autosomal markers would be effective in clearly discerning this as does the Y chromosomes
They don't.
It's and oversimplication of course but try looking at autosomes as measuring distance, and sex chromosome as measuring origin.
I know that autosomes can measure genetic distance; that is besides the point. The point is, how could autosomal analysis show that any two given populations with shared most recent history [naturally wherein inter-societal miscegenation is well documented] in geographical proximity to be any less genetically closer to one another than either two are to geographically distant groups with whom they “only” share a ‘distant’ common recent ancestry [as per Y chromosome and mtDNA markers] and have been considerably separated from the latter both in temporal and spatial sense? Wouldn’t you expect to see that populations which have more ‘recently’ crossbred in geographical proximity, despite possible different distribution patterns of TMRCA associations, to be relatively genetically closer when analyzed from the autosomal standpoint?
quote:rasol:
They are two interdependant, but nontheless distinct properties.
Of course.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Of course we do. How do you think TMRCA is attained? What do microsatellite diversity, sub-clade diversity and frequency distribution, and level of microsatellite differentiation mean to you?
Well, I think they should mean very little if we can't acknowledge the fact that there have been population movements and migration in the past that may have led to wide difference in genetic and biological makeup between a couple thousand years ago and now. My whole point here is that biological populations within demographic areas move and change.
Who said that populations don't move?
quote:qoucela:
Judging from your response, you must also have seen some DNA studies concluding that most modern populations in Arabia are directly evolved from ancient populations in Arabia. I would like to view them.
Judging from your response, you must not have read past discussions on this board. Try Semino et al.'s 'origin, diffusion, and differentiation of Y chromosome haplogroups E and J, or Luis et al.'s Nile Valley-Levantine corridor Vs the African Horn study, amongst others.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:qoucela:
The concept of lineage origination in genetics is not that cut and dry especially when ethnohistorical documentation is ignored.
I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of JordanPalestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
Yes, the south Arabian cultures like the Tihama have been deemed to have some associations with East Africa, with contribution coming largely from the African side. As for the rest of 'southwest Asia", the Neolithic agricultural revolution of the Levantine region was largely an in situ development, having occurred after population flows from the Nile Valley, along with new lithic cultures. With this spread, came proto-Afrasan languages that would form the basis of the Semitic languages now spoken in the region. These populations are characterized by YAP+ E-M215 chromosomes - again, marking "East African" contribution, as opposed to "southwest Asian" origin.
I am glad you have helped confirm my belief in the East African origins of the Syro-Canaanite peoples. So why is it so hard to fathom that such people could not have moved back into Africa a few thousand years ago as their own traditions claim they did.
Who said that people could not, and have not, moved back into Africa? Your claim about Tuareg origins from outside of Africa, is what is baseless and that they proclaim to be of extra-African, in absence of pending objective corroboration. You need to be able to discern what is being said and what isn't.
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Sandawe have never clustered with West Africans in any study.
Sandawe live in Tanzania among mostly Bantu, of west African origin, and consequently Sandawe have E3A as well as E3b.
Are you saying that it is a contradiction to find autosomal affinity between Sandawe and West Africans?
Having a closer affinity to West Africans than to Bantus? Yes, I think there is a anomaly with that.
Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: [QUOTE]As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%...
Evergreen Writes:
It would be of interest to know which sub-clade of E3a was found in Siwa and other parts of the Eastern Sahara and Nile Valley. This area of research is still in its infancy in comparison to the delineation of E3b*. The lower frequency of E3a in the Siwa oasis area could relate to limited population subsistence potential during the mid-holocene dry phase. Potential Saharan populations packing would have been greater along the Nile Valley than in the oasis areas where more ancient hunter-gather populations retained land.
Evergreen Posts:
Sub-populations within the major European and African derived haplogroups R1b3 and E3a are differentiated by previously phylogenetically undefined Y-SNPs.
Hum Mutat. 2007 Jan;28(1):97
Single nucleotide polymorphisms on the Y chromosome (Y-SNPs) have been widely used in the study of human migration patterns and evolution. Potential forensic applications of Y-SNPs include their use in predicting the ethnogeographic origin of the donor of a crime scene sample, or exclusion of suspects of sexual assaults (the evidence of which often comprises male/female mixtures and may involve multiple perpetrators), paternity testing, and identification of non- and half-siblings. In this study, we used a population of 118 African- and 125 European-Americans to evaluate 12 previously phylogenetically undefined Y-SNPs for their ability to further differentiate individuals who belong to the major African (E3a)- and European (R1b3, I)-derived haplogroups. Ten of these markers define seven new sub-clades (equivalent to E3a7a, E3a8, E3a8a, E3a8a1, R1b3h, R1b3i, and R1b3i1 using the Y Chromosome Consortium nomenclature) within haplogroups E and R. Interestingly, during the course of this study we evaluated M222, a sub-R1b3 marker rarely used, and found that this sub-haplogroup in effect defines the Y-STR Irish Modal Haplotype (IMH). The new bi-allelic markers described here are expected to find application in human evolutionary studies and forensic genetics.
I'm not clear on the E3a subclade they may have, but they do have B-M109 which is of great interest and 1% of E-M81. Haplogroup is rare to nil in Berber speakers exept for the Siwa.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
I don't consider the fact that the bulk of the ancestors of the Tuareg could have lived between the Gulf of Ailah and the southern Levant between 3000 years ago evidence of recent intrusion. However, most of the evidence that shows a connection to populations of the area is mostly archeological, physical anthropological, ethnohistorical, linguistic and logical. Sorry, there is no model to invoke here, but you can provide your multi-disciplinary model showing where the Tuareg tribes came from since you've implied there is one.
I also want to inform you that if you would like a biography of books that have led me to the conclusions I have I can send you them through personal email. As I have spent the last 30 years studying in both an academic and non-academic sphere the evolution of theories and problems in the study of African physical anthropology and history, I can assure you the list is pretty sufficient.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]Unfortunately, I also agree with you that DNA focuses mainly on biological history and can not say much in regard to ancient population movement, linguistic or cultural history.
Evergreen Writes:
Actually this is untrue. DNA can tell us much about ancient population movement, linguistics and cultural history when studied in a multidisciplinary fashion. Please lay out the multidisciplinary model that supports Tuareg origins in SW Asia ~4,000 years ago?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I don't consider the fact that the bulk of the ancestors of the Tuareg could have lived between the Gulf of Ailah and the southern Levant between 3000 years ago
^ Don't be silly. This isn't a fact. It is and unsubstantiated claim.
Your job is to produce evidence.
Don't repeat claims, that you cannot evidence.
thanks.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
Who said Tuareg originated outside of Africa? I think my claim has been that Africans settled in the Syro-Canaan and Arabian areas in ancient times and that these Ethio-Arabian Afro-Asiatics are the people from which the Tuareg are derived. If the peoples of the neolithic and chalcolithic cultures of the Levant and Arabia have originated in Africa than the Tuareg would have had to have been originally of African descent. I don't think anyone has said anything here that contradicts my conclusions.
Who said that people could not, and have not, moved back into Africa? Your claim about Tuareg origins from outside of Africa, is what is baseless and that they proclaim to be of extra-African, in absence of pending objective corroboration. You need to be able to discern what is being said and what isn't. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
I don't consider the fact that the bulk of the ancestors of the Tuareg could have lived between the Gulf of Ailah and the southern Levant between 3000 years ago evidence of recent intrusion. However, most of the evidence that shows a connection to populations of the area is mostly archeological, physical anthropological, ethnohistorical, linguistic and logical. Sorry, there is no model to invoke here, but you can provide your multi-disciplinary model showing where the Tuareg tribes came from since you've implied there is one.
You bet.
Lineages:
code:
Y chromosomes---> Hg E - African . mtDNA-----------> Haplogroups L1, L2, L3,U6 - African
Language: "Berber"/Tamazigh - strictly African
Cultural anthropology: Documented accounts involving "Tuareg" groups: all place them strictly in Africa at the time of documentation.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
The words "could have" don't imply it is already a fact. However, I will tell you, like I told Evergreen that I can provide a list of books that can be read that do provide a substantial amount of evidence to show a Near Eastern (Ethio-Arabian) component in the Tuareg and for that matter certain other Afro-Asiatics now living in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I don't consider the fact that the bulk of the ancestors of the Tuareg could have lived between the Gulf of Ailah and the southern Levant between 3000 years ago
^ Don't be silly. This isn't a fact. It is and unsubstantiated claim.
Your job is to produce evidence.
Don't repeat claims, that you cannot evidence.
thanks.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The words "could have" don't imply it is already a fact.
Don't use the word fact, if you don't mean to imply it, and can't back it up.
Using the word fact in then begging off the requirements for proof, is dissembling, and not evidencing.
You're slipping fast.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Who said Tuareg originated outside of Africa?
Are you saying Tamasheq speakers [Taureg] originated in Africa....migrated into Arabia, came back into Africa, then disappeared from Arabia?
Lay out your chronology for the African origin of the Tamasheq - their expansion into Arabia, return to Africa....and mysterious disappearance without a trace from Arabia, and all within the last 4,000 years...of *recorded* history. (???)
thanks.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^Actually you are citing me in that last piece, in response to qoucela. He/she appears to be having problems with the quotation function. At any rate, you've still got the gist of his/her mentality about "Tuaregs" in your post.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ^Actually you are citing me, in responce to qoucela. He/she appears to be having problems with the quotation function.
I'm lost, which comment is yours?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
^Actually you are citing me, in responce to qoucela. He/she appears to be having problems with the quotation function.
I'm lost, which comment is yours?
When you posted this piece, wherein it states 'originally posted by qoucela', that question was actually mine, in response to qoucela's post:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Who said Tuareg originated outside of Africa?
Are you saying Tamasheq speakers [Taureg] originated in Africa....migrated into Arabia, came back into Africa, then disappeared from Arabia?
Lay out your chronology for the African origin of the Tamasheq - their expansion into Arabia, return to Africa....and mysterious disappearance without a trace from Arabia, and all within the last 4,000 years...of *recorded* history. (???)
thanks.
^qoucela appears to be having some difficulty with properly using the quotation function, and so, I can understand where the confusion must have come from. But like I said in my edited last post, you've still managed to capture his/her mentality, with regards to the "Tuaregs".
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ got it. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^Nevermind, I got it wrong. I went back and checked. You cited him correctly!
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
My son needs to use the computer so this will be the last time I respond tonight. I already responded to your finding that genetics is confirming the eastern African and Bedja affiliation of the Tuareg, which I spoke about in my article on the Berbers in Dr. Van Sertima's the Golden Age of the Moors without the help of the genetics that has arisin in the last 20 years.
My name is Dana Reynolds-Marniche. The surname Marniche is Kabyle and having lived among them I've come to conclude they have much more affiliation with Greeks Romans and EuroMediterraneans than they do with Tuareg and the bulk of other dark Amazigh.
It is my understanding that Berber is part of the Afro-Asiatic linguistic grouping and that scholars have already discovered that the Tamashek dialect is related to other dialects of that group in and outside of Africa. The Tuareg name for their written script is Tifinagh meaning "belonging to the Phoenicians" (in case you didn't know it).
Finally - documented claims of the Lamtuna (Aulemmiden) Tuareg of Niger to Sir Richmond Palmer in the early 20th century were that they once lived in and came from Asia Minor (Levant) centuries before Alexander the Great. Other European explorers in the early 20th and 19th centuries, as well as many previous ones have been told similarly by the Tuareg and Bedja, Danakil and certain Ethio-semitic speakers. And yes, much of the early Arabian tradition does say that possible ancestors of the Tuareg - the tribes of Ad, Chadad, Thamud, Amlakhu, Pharis, Gathar Djurdjan (Triton)to name a few were either kicked out or exterminated from Arabia, and that after settling in and ruling Egypt "that many advanced to the Maghrib".
Again, I'll have to say I believe making assumptions about modern population movements has got to take into account cultural and ethnohistorical contexts and just because a certain population is or isn't present in Africa or Arabia now doesn't mean they were or were not in a certain location 3000 years ago.
Those who want some biography can read my articles in Dr. Van Sertima's books and start with those. Otherwise they can wait til I get my web-site back up again in which I will provide all of the evidence that is available to us as researchers.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
I don't consider the fact that the bulk of the ancestors of the Tuareg could have lived between the Gulf of Ailah and the southern Levant between 3000 years ago evidence of recent intrusion. However, most of the evidence that shows a connection to populations of the area is mostly archeological, physical anthropological, ethnohistorical, linguistic and logical. Sorry, there is no model to invoke here, but you can provide your multi-disciplinary model showing where the Tuareg tribes came from since you've implied there is one.
You bet.
Lineages:
code:
Y chromosomes---> Hg E - African . mtDNA-----------> Haplogroups L1, L2, L3,U6 - African
Language: "Berber"/Tamazigh - strictly African
Cultural anthropology: Documented accounts involving "Tuareg" groups: all place them strictly in Africa at the time of documentation.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I already responded to your finding that genetics is confirming the eastern African and Bedja affiliation of the Tuareg, which I spoke about in my article on the Berbers in Dr. Van Sertima's the Golden Age of the Moors without the help of the genetics that has arisin in the last 20 years.
Evergreen Writes:
I have respect for you and I have respect for the work of Dr. Van Sertima. In fact, as a undergrad I was head of my BSU and led the effort to bring Dr. Van Sertima to our campus. But many things have changed within the last 20 years.
We now know that there were populations indigenous to the Americas that explain the so-called Negroid characteristics among the early Olmec. We also now know that the Tuareg are indigenous to Africa thanks to a multidisciplinary approach.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Again, I'll have to say I believe making assumptions about modern population movements has got to take into account cultural and ethnohistorical contexts and just because a certain population is or isn't present in Africa or Arabia now doesn't mean they were or were not in a certain location 3000 years ago.
Evergreen Writes:
Again, I'll have to say I believe making assumptions about modern population movements has got to take into account cultural, ethnohistorical contexts, botany AND genetics.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
I bold parts which I want to emphasize; nothing more or less. If you see 'plagiarized distortion' anywhere wherein I've cited you, please feel free to point it out, and the specifics of where the claim has wrongly been attributed to you.
quote:qoucela:
My son needs to use the computer so this will be the last time I respond tonight. I already responded to your finding that genetics is confirming the eastern African and Bedja affiliation of the Tuareg, which I spoke about in my article on the Berbers in Dr. Van Sertima's the Golden Age of the Moors without the help of the genetics that has arisin in the last 20 years.
Which I take it, would be on the mention of E-M81.
quote:qoucela:
My name is Dana Reynolds-Marniche. The surname Marniche is Kabyle and having lived among them I've come to conclude they have much more affiliation with Greeks Romans and EuroMediterraneans than they do with Tuareg and the bulk of other dark Amazigh.
In what terms?
quote:qoucela:
It is my understanding that Berber is part of the Afro-Asiatic linguistic grouping and that scholars have already discovered that the Tamashek dialect is related to other dialects of that group in and outside of Africa.
You bet. It is related most closely with the "Berber" sub-family than the others in the Afrasan [you know it as "Afro-Asiatic"] macrofamily. To the extent that it ultimately relates to the Afrasan macro-family, yes, it would be related to other Afrasan languages outside of Africa, namely the extra-African Semitic languages. However, this is immaterial to the fact that "Tamazigh" spoken by Tuaregs isn't spoken and indigenous to anywhere else but Africa.
quote:qoucela:
Finally - documented claims of the Lamtuna (Aulemmiden) Tuareg of Niger to Sir Richmond Palmer in the early 20th century were that they once lived in and came from Asia Minor (Levant) centuries before Alexander the Great. Other European explorers in the early 20th and 19th centuries, as well as many previous ones have been told similarly by the Tuareg and Bedja, Danakil and certain Ethio-semitic speakers. And yes, much of the early Arabian tradition does say that possible ancestors of the Tuareg - the tribes of Ad, Chadad, Thamud, Amlakhu, Pharis, Gathar Djurdjan (Triton)to name a few were either kicked out or exterminated from Arabia, and that after settling in and ruling Egypt "that many advanced to the Maghrib".
The following recap may well be instructive:
quote:Originally posted by ausar:
Most of the Tuaregs don't claim to come from Yemen. According to their own oral legends they come from a female named Tin Hanan from Southern Morocco. The problem with much of the oral legends of Africans that embrace Islam is that many try to connect themselves back to points in Islamic history--i.e. the Songhai claiming to desend from Yemanis and Hausa claming they come from Iraq. Islamicized Africans were known to have fabricated geneologies and legends.
The Sanhaja mentioned are not primarly comprised of Tuaregs but many different groups of Saharan Imazigh[berber] groups. Tuaregs were only one part of them.
Something about the Tuareg people have to keep in mind is that there are various different Kels. Kels are like clan divisions that Somalis have. Most claim desendant from Tin Hanan and some from Lemtuna. If you knew who Lemtuna was then you would know she was a legendary queen and matriarch.
The Tuareg[Kel Tamelsheq] unlike Arabs or Semitic speaking populations are matrilineal and even matriarchical. Most have no problem with having queens ruling over them and honor females through sucession.
Tuareg relate their origins as the following:
Tuareg origin myths relate the Tuareg to Lemtuna, the ancestress of the Berbers who lived around Ghadames in Tripolitania (Nicolaisen 1963: p. 405). Another myth relates the Tuareg to the legendary Queen Tin Hinan who came to Abalessa in the Ahaggar region from Tafilelt in Morocco (p. 69). According to Prasse, these legends suggest the Tuareg of southern Algeria came from Libya and Morocco, and the Kel Ayr and Kel Geres have Libyan origins. Tuareg from Mali claim to have come from Morocco or Mauritania (p. 71). Tuareg society has always been characterized by rivalry between groups, and in time different groups have enjoyed supremacy over others (p. 72). When the French arrived in the Hoggar they were met with great resistance and peace was reached in 1917. It lasted until independence in 1960. The French let the Tuareg continue their nomadic lifestyles; however, they saw to it that no concentration of power emerged (p. 80). Although the French did think of setting up an independent Tuareg state, the idea never materialized (p. 80)
Is there an objective reasoning to doubt that the above is the case?
quote:qoucela:
Again, I'll have to say I believe making assumptions about modern population movements has got to take into account cultural and ethnohistorical contexts and just because a certain population is or isn't present in Africa or Arabia now doesn't mean they were or were not in a certain location 3000 years ago.
And what do you think we've been counting on; genetics alone? Of course not; we've taken into account, the linguistic and historical issues, which I've laid out in the post you are replying to, but never actually addressed specifically.
quote:qoucela:
Those who want some biography can read my articles in Dr. Van Sertima's books and start with those. Otherwise they can wait til I get my web-site back up again in which I will provide all of the evidence that is available to us as researchers.
No problem, I'll wait for answers that 'specifically' address the points made in my post(s).
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:For example, if my mother's MtDNA were to show that her ancestors were related to the Yoruba of Nigeria, that may say nothing of where the Yoruba were at the time her African American ancestors left Africa
But that's a rather odd and ineffetual disputation of what genetics can usually teach us.
Consider:
In this case, your mothers DNA has already told you something of profound importance about - her ansestry.
Namely genetics has confirmed that although she lives in North America, her ancestry is *not* native to North America, but rather to Africa.
Genetics has correctly charted the migration from Africa to America.
You offer the caveat that your mother's genetics give us limited information about 'where the Yoruba' were thousands of years ago.
Well, that's true, but then you are not studying Yoruba, you are studying single African American, which is not the proper basis for charting Yoruban migrations.
In other words by the logic of your own admission .... if you study the Yoruba, you can learn about the history of their migrations....just like you learned about the history of your mother(s) ancestry by studying her DNA.
In my opinion your example proves the opposite of what you intend. It proves that if you study population X, you can learn about its migration history. All you are saying is that studying X may not be informative about Y. [where X is your mother and Y is Yoruba]
But of course, why would it?
To learn about population Y....you study Y.
Population genetics is much more powerful and informative than you credit it for, and I predict that as you continue to research this, you will eventually come to agree. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Nice to have you onboard. I've read, studied, and quoted you from two of your works in Dr. Van Sertima's journals.
A while back I raised issues here (and on the old sister forum) as to the relations and impact of the north Mediterraneans/Aegeans on the original indigenous littoral and further inland North African populations.
I posit, based on certain Minoan depictions of what I assume to be the indigenous eastern Libyans, that north Meds/Aegeans were culturally absorbed by but physically altered primarily the littoral North African populations (most notably those west of Tunisie).
The Meshwesh invasion of eastern Libya and ancient Egypt is another thing I base my supposition on. Certain "Sea Peoples" also have esh suffixed ethnonyms. None of these peoples names, though all appearing in AEL documents, seem to bear AEL lexical value.
I hold that the Imazighen only go back to the Meshwesh, have little to no relationship to the THHNW known to the AE's, and only became known as TMHHW by way of generalization.
I'll bump up the threads delving into these points for your input and analysis.
The bolding of your writings in other members responses is an automatic UBB function to aid identifying whose text was written by who. It can be defeated but that's up to the replying individual to chose to do or not to do. Hi-liting text helps emphasize the point being made (or debated. And make no mistake, the main thrust here is debate not discussion).
It's a rough and tumble crew here, but stick around for a while. Teach yourself basic population genetics. It's the powerfullest tool we have in modern Africana studies. I came here with a standard Africana background, much like your own, and after applying population genetics made strides in linking once baffling components of ethnography into a more sensable and stronger chain.
I own Bates and Palmer, and while they're good for cultural, linguistic, literary, etc., understanding nothing can reveal population origins the way genetics does. What those old scholars can do for us is help interpret some of the movement indicated by the genetics. We're moving on into the 21st century we can't remain shackled outside progress by late 19th and early 20th century methodologies.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
Hi there,
Unfortunately, I've been so busy recently find myself unable to continue hours long discussions on the web. Thanks much for letting me know how to find out where to use the UBB code here, I think I need to be using HTML though. Will try to change it on my profile. Hopefully, will have time to look into it soon.
I have to respectfully disagree about your use of the term Imazighen since the Romans and Byzantines used the term Mezikes for the same people they termed "Ethiopians". For them the "Mazikes" were one of the Ethiopian groups. From what I have read that term has only recently been adopted by certain coastal Berbers, like the Kabyle, for nationalist purposes.
By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty.
Anyway, I'm afraid my point about the Tuareg has been missed because of certain general lack of knowledge of ancient history of Africa and the ancient Near East Levant - not so much by you as by some others I've been speaking to and, I'm guessing what evidence I do provide on this blog is not going to be of much use for now.
Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc. In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula. The Ihaggaren Tuareg are said to have named the "hills of Hagar" the region of Hoggar or Ahaggar. The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia.
When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century and agrees that these were likely the same as the people now suspected to have been called Midianites (or Madiau in Josephus), one should not be surprised to find such other names as the sons of Keturah ( Ketu south node of the moon) or Hagar (Rahu north node of the moon) - said to be the same person in Muslim and Judaic writings - and Madiau (Bedja), Afar or Iforas (Epher or Afra, Pharusii), the Kel Inneg Tuareg and Danakil or Anag of the Bedja), Ephah (Yafaai), and other related peoples of Hagar and Keturah today all among the dark-skinned groups in the Red Sea area on both sides. I am in the process of writing a paper on this so I won't elaborate any more here. I believe as the ancients that the Tuareg are an eastern branch of the Bedja.
Would like to add again though that becoming familiar with population genetics of Africa quite a few years ago had led me to believe that one might be able to determine biological relationships, but not necessarily the remote geographical origins of people, especially at this stage in its development.
This is why you see scholars such as Strouhal interviewed on the Discovery channel still claiming that North Africa and the Sahara many thousands of years ago were occupied early on by both "whites" from the Near East and "black Africans" and other supposedly educational TV programs, claiming pharoanic Egyptians were essentially a non-black population while Nubia was black African - the land of the so called black Pharaohs.
I should have known it was coming. When I first began in the 1980s to look at population studies done to determine the origin of "the Berbers", I noticed these studies were usually being done on peoples that should never have been considered related to the original Berber-speakers- Tuareg or Kel Tamashek (Imazighen, Imoshagh) - in the first place. Because geneticists that were specializing in research on their ascertained Berbers(Kabyle, Shawia, and several northern Algerian and Moroccan tribes) were for the most part lacking historical, archeological and linguistic expertise of North Africa, they could only come to such conclusions as "the Berbers are largely of Eurasian and southern Mediterranean affiliation" and to such theories that fair-skinned Berbers must be essentially Caucasoid and have come arrived back in Africa over ten thousand years ago to help in the developent of the Saharan holocene. In fact, studies on physical anthropology had proven that most populations around the ancient Mediterranean and throughout the Near East involved in the neolithic agricultural revolution, including both the entire area of the Mediterranean, north and south, were greatly differentiated osteologically from modern day populations. As different as black and white.
This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant tend to be mesocranic and even brachycephalic as in the case of the Levant and southern Italy - unlike the ancient coastal North Africans and mostancient Mediterraneans previous to 1000 B.C. Tuareg on the other hand are often ultra-dolicocephalic and have many features in common with the Nilotes and Ethiopians.
Many Western and Central Africans also show more mesocranic connections, no doubt due to their being evolved from mixtures between the ancient dolicochocephals, mesocranic and brachycephals once occupying the Nile region and Sahara region. I understand a lot of scholars don't like to rely on cranial cephalic assessments any more, and when one looks at what was discovered by such early physical anthropologists as Sergi, Mellarte (Chatal Huyuk), Haddon, Grafton Elliot Smith and Coon one can easily understand why. For example, how could the Canaan of the Phoenicians be predominantly dolichocephalic and yet modern day populations of the same location considerably brachycephalic. Nationalism gets in the way. The fact is the Phoenicians have long disappeared from the Levant.
The ancient Levant, except for parts of Israel Palestine/Lashich etc. also until around 900 BC (probably due to some drastic change of population) became largely occupied by a stockier built, brachycephalic people ancestral to today's "Middle Eastern" population of that region.
Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians, when in fact, the earlier genetic studies based on presence of genetic traits show that the homogeneity that was present in ancient Egypt stopped dead around the time of the Ptolemaic Greek intrusion into Egypt.
Therefore, ancient Egyptians, although having contributed to modern populations in Egypt should not be considered a heterogeneous people like todays Egyptian who is a product of a long evolution of amalgamating Eurasian and African peoples.
Also, please do not give up your ancient Fulani heritage which included a strong connection with Birzeit YaPhlet populations of the Near East (see Palmer's Bornu Sahara and Sudan on the Warith Fulata and Barzu Fulitani of Syrian provenance) just because some European has come along 3000 years later, conceiving studies to benefit himself and decided his direct ancestors were there in your stead.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nice to have you onboard. I've read, studied, and quoted you from two of your works in Dr. Van Sertima's journals.
A while back I raised issues here (and on the old sister forum) as to the relations and impact of the north Mediterraneans/Aegeans on the original indigenous littoral and further inland North African populations.
I posit, based on certain Minoan depictions of what I assume to be the indigenous eastern Libyans, that north Meds/Aegeans were culturally absorbed by but physically altered primarily the littoral North African populations (most notably those west of Tunisie).
The Meshwesh invasion of eastern Libya and ancient Egypt is another thing I base my supposition on. Certain "Sea Peoples" also have esh suffixed ethnonyms. None of these peoples names, though all appearing in AEL documents, seem to bear AEL lexical value.
I hold that the Imazighen only go back to the Meshwesh, have little to no relationship to the THHNW known to the AE's, and only became known as TMHHW by way of generalization.
I'll bump up the threads delving into these points for your input and analysis.
The bolding of your writings in other members responses is an automatic UBB function to aid identifying whose text was written by who. It can be defeated but that's up to the replying individual to chose to do or not to do. Hi-liting text helps emphasize the point being made (or debated. And make no mistake, the main thrust here is debate not discussion).
It's a rough and tumble crew here, but stick around for a while. Teach yourself basic population genetics. It's the powerfullest tool we have in modern Africana studies. I came here with a standard Africana background, much like your own, and after applying population genetics made strides in linking once baffling components of ethnography into a more sensable and stronger chain.
I own Bates and Palmer, and while they're good for cultural, linguistic, literary, etc., understanding nothing can reveal population origins the way genetics does. What those old scholars can do for us is help interpret some of the movement indicated by the genetics. We're moving on into the 21st century we can't remain shackled outside progress by late 19th and early 20th century methodologies.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
Hi there,
Unfortunately, I've been so busy recently find myself unable to continue hours long discussions on the web. Thanks much for letting me know how to find out where to use the UBB code here, I think I need to be using HTML though. Will try to change it on my profile. Hopefully, will have time to look into it soon.
I have to respectfully disagree about your use of the term Imazighen since the Romans and Byzantines used the term Mezikes for the same people they termed "Ethiopians". For them the "Mazikes" were one of the Ethiopian groups. From what I have read that term has only recently been adopted by certain coastal Berbers, like the Kabyle, for nationalist purposes.
By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty.
Anyway, I'm afraid my point about the Tuareg has been missed because of certain general lack of knowledge of ancient history of Africa and the ancient Near East Levant - not so much by you as by some others I've been speaking to and, I'm guessing what evidence I do provide on this blog is not going to be of much use for now.
Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc. In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula. The Ihaggaren Tuareg are said to have named the "hills of Hagar" the region of Hoggar or Ahaggar. The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia.
When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century and agrees that these were likely the same as the people now suspected to have been called Midianites (or Madiau in Josephus), one should not be surprised to find such other names as the sons of Keturah ( Ketu south node of the moon) or Hagar (Rahu north node of the moon) - said to be the same person in Muslim and Judaic writings - and Madiau (Bedja), Afar or Iforas (Epher or Afra, Pharusii), the Kel Inneg Tuareg and Danakil or Anag of the Bedja), Ephah (Yafaai), and other related peoples of Hagar and Keturah today all among the dark-skinned groups in the Red Sea area on both sides. I am in the process of writing a paper on this so I won't elaborate any more here. I believe as the ancients that the Tuareg are an eastern branch of the Bedja.
Would like to add again though that becoming familiar with population genetics of Africa quite a few years ago had led me to believe that one might be able to determine biological relationships, but not necessarily the remote geographical origins of people, especially at this stage in its development.
This is why you see scholars such as Strouhal interviewed on the Discovery channel still claiming that North Africa and the Sahara many thousands of years ago were occupied early on by both "whites" from the Near East and "black Africans" and other supposedly educational TV programs, claiming pharoanic Egyptians were essentially a non-black population while Nubia was black African - the land of the so called black Pharaohs.
I should have known it was coming. When I first began in the 1980s to look at population studies done to determine the origin of "the Berbers", I noticed these studies were usually being done on peoples that should never have been considered related to the original Berber-speakers- Tuareg or Kel Tamashek (Imazighen, Imoshagh) - in the first place. Because geneticists that were specializing in research on their ascertained Berbers(Kabyle, Shawia, and several northern Algerian and Moroccan tribes) were for the most part lacking historical, archeological and linguistic expertise of North Africa, they could only come to such conclusions as "the Berbers are largely of Eurasian and southern Mediterranean affiliation" and to such theories that fair-skinned Berbers must be essentially Caucasoid and have come arrived back in Africa over ten thousand years ago to help in the developent of the Saharan holocene. In fact, studies on physical anthropology had proven that most populations around the ancient Mediterranean and throughout the Near East involved in the neolithic agricultural revolution, including both the entire area of the Mediterranean, north and south, were greatly differentiated osteologically from modern day populations. As different as black and white.
This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant tend to be mesocranic and even brachycephalic as in the case of the Levant and southern Italy - unlike the ancient coastal North Africans and mostancient Mediterraneans previous to 1000 B.C. Tuareg on the other hand are often ultra-dolicocephalic and have many features in common with the Nilotes and Ethiopians.
Many Western and Central Africans also show more mesocranic connections, no doubt due to their being evolved from mixtures between the ancient dolicochocephals, mesocranic and brachycephals once occupying the Nile region and Sahara region. I understand a lot of scholars don't like to rely on cranial cephalic assessments any more, and when one looks at what was discovered by such early physical anthropologists as Sergi, Mellarte (Chatal Huyuk), Haddon, Grafton Elliot Smith and Coon one can easily understand why. For example, how could the Canaan of the Phoenicians be predominantly dolichocephalic and yet modern day populations of the same location considerably brachycephalic. Nationalism gets in the way. The fact is the Phoenicians have long disappeared from the Levant.
The ancient Levant, except for parts of Israel Palestine/Lashich etc. also until around 900 BC (probably due to some drastic change of population) became largely occupied by a stockier built, brachycephalic people ancestral to today's "Middle Eastern" population of that region.
Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians, when in fact, the earlier genetic studies based on presence of genetic traits show that the homogeneity that was present in ancient Egypt stopped dead around the time of the Ptolemaic Greek intrusion into Egypt.
Therefore, ancient Egyptians, although having contributed to modern populations in Egypt should not be considered a heterogeneous people like todays Egyptian who is a product of a long evolution of amalgamating Eurasian and African peoples.
Also, please do not give up your ancient Fulani heritage which included a strong connection with Birzeit YaPhlet populations of the Near East (see Palmer's Bornu Sahara and Sudan on the Warith Fulata and Barzu Fulitani of Syrian provenance) just because some European has come along 3000 years later, conceiving studies to benefit himself and decided his direct ancestors were there in your stead.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nice to have you onboard. I've read, studied, and quoted you from two of your works in Dr. Van Sertima's journals.
A while back I raised issues here (and on the old sister forum) as to the relations and impact of the north Mediterraneans/Aegeans on the original indigenous littoral and further inland North African populations.
I posit, based on certain Minoan depictions of what I assume to be the indigenous eastern Libyans, that north Meds/Aegeans were culturally absorbed by but physically altered primarily the littoral North African populations (most notably those west of Tunisie).
The Meshwesh invasion of eastern Libya and ancient Egypt is another thing I base my supposition on. Certain "Sea Peoples" also have esh suffixed ethnonyms. None of these peoples names, though all appearing in AEL documents, seem to bear AEL lexical value.
I hold that the Imazighen only go back to the Meshwesh, have little to no relationship to the THHNW known to the AE's, and only became known as TMHHW by way of generalization.
I'll bump up the threads delving into these points for your input and analysis.
The bolding of your writings in other members responses is an automatic UBB function to aid identifying whose text was written by who. It can be defeated but that's up to the replying individual to chose to do or not to do. Hi-liting text helps emphasize the point being made (or debated. And make no mistake, the main thrust here is debate not discussion).
It's a rough and tumble crew here, but stick around for a while. Teach yourself basic population genetics. It's the powerfullest tool we have in modern Africana studies. I came here with a standard Africana background, much like your own, and after applying population genetics made strides in linking once baffling components of ethnography into a more sensable and stronger chain.
I own Bates and Palmer, and while they're good for cultural, linguistic, literary, etc., understanding nothing can reveal population origins the way genetics does. What those old scholars can do for us is help interpret some of the movement indicated by the genetics. We're moving on into the 21st century we can't remain shackled outside progress by late 19th and early 20th century methodologies.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
Posted by qoucela (Member # 13149) on :
Hi there,
Unfortunately, I've been so busy recently find myself unable to continue hours long discussions on the web. Thanks much for letting me know how to find out where to use the UBB code here, I think I need to be using HTML though. Will try to change it on my profile. Hopefully, will have time to look into it soon.
I have to respectfully disagree about your use of the term Imazighen since the Romans and Byzantines used the term Mezikes for the same people they termed "Ethiopians". For them the "Mazikes" were one of the Ethiopian groups. From what I have read that term has only recently been adopted by certain coastal Berbers, like the Kabyle, for nationalist purposes.
By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty.
Anyway, I'm afraid my point about the Tuareg has been missed because of certain general lack of knowledge of ancient history of Africa and the ancient Near East Levant - not so much by you as by some others I've been speaking to and, I'm guessing what evidence I do provide on this blog is not going to be of much use for now.
Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc. In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula. The Ihaggaren Tuareg are said to have named the "hills of Hagar" the region of Hoggar or Ahaggar. The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia.
When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century and agrees that these were likely the same as the people now suspected to have been called Midianites (or Madiau in Josephus), one should not be surprised to find such other names as the sons of Keturah ( Ketu south node of the moon) or Hagar (Rahu north node of the moon) - said to be the same person in Muslim and Judaic writings - and Madiau (Bedja), Afar or Iforas (Epher or Afra, Pharusii), the Kel Inneg Tuareg and Danakil or Anag of the Bedja), Ephah (Yafaai), and other related peoples of Hagar and Keturah today all among the dark-skinned groups in the Red Sea area on both sides. I am in the process of writing a paper on this so I won't elaborate any more here. I believe as the ancients that the Tuareg are an eastern branch of the Bedja.
Would like to add again though that becoming familiar with population genetics of Africa quite a few years ago had led me to believe that one might be able to determine biological relationships, but not necessarily the remote geographical origins of people, especially at this stage in its development.
This is why you see scholars such as Strouhal interviewed on the Discovery channel still claiming that North Africa and the Sahara many thousands of years ago were occupied early on by both "whites" from the Near East and "black Africans" and other supposedly educational TV programs, claiming pharoanic Egyptians were essentially a non-black population while Nubia was black African - the land of the so called black Pharaohs.
I should have known it was coming. When I first began in the 1980s to look at population studies done to determine the origin of "the Berbers", I noticed these studies were usually being done on peoples that should never have been considered related to the original Berber-speakers- Tuareg or Kel Tamashek (Imazighen, Imoshagh) - in the first place. Because geneticists that were specializing in research on their ascertained Berbers(Kabyle, Shawia, and several northern Algerian and Moroccan tribes) were for the most part lacking historical, archeological and linguistic expertise of North Africa, they could only come to such conclusions as "the Berbers are largely of Eurasian and southern Mediterranean affiliation" and to such theories that fair-skinned Berbers must be essentially Caucasoid and have come arrived back in Africa over ten thousand years ago to help in the developent of the Saharan holocene. In fact, studies on physical anthropology had proven that most populations around the ancient Mediterranean and throughout the Near East involved in the neolithic agricultural revolution, including both the entire area of the Mediterranean, north and south, were greatly differentiated osteologically from modern day populations. As different as black and white.
This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant tend to be mesocranic and even brachycephalic as in the case of the Levant and southern Italy - unlike the ancient coastal North Africans and mostancient Mediterraneans previous to 1000 B.C. Tuareg on the other hand are often ultra-dolicocephalic and have many features in common with the Nilotes and Ethiopians.
Many Western and Central Africans also show more mesocranic connections, no doubt due to their being evolved from mixtures between the ancient dolicochocephals, mesocranic and brachycephals once occupying the Nile region and Sahara region. I understand a lot of scholars don't like to rely on cranial cephalic assessments any more, and when one looks at what was discovered by such early physical anthropologists as Sergi, Mellarte (Chatal Huyuk), Haddon, Grafton Elliot Smith and Coon one can easily understand why. For example, how could the Canaan of the Phoenicians be predominantly dolichocephalic and yet modern day populations of the same location considerably brachycephalic. Nationalism gets in the way. The fact is the Phoenicians have long disappeared from the Levant.
The ancient Levant, except for parts of Israel Palestine/Lashich etc. also until around 900 BC (probably due to some drastic change of population) became largely occupied by a stockier built, brachycephalic people ancestral to today's "Middle Eastern" population of that region.
Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians, when in fact, the earlier genetic studies based on presence of genetic traits show that the homogeneity that was present in ancient Egypt stopped dead around the time of the Ptolemaic Greek intrusion into Egypt.
Therefore, ancient Egyptians, although having contributed to modern populations in Egypt should not be considered a heterogeneous people like todays Egyptian who is a product of a long evolution of amalgamating Eurasian and African peoples.
Also, please do not give up your ancient Fulani heritage which included a strong connection with Birzeit YaPhlet populations of the Near East (see Palmer's Bornu Sahara and Sudan on the Warith Fulata and Barzu Fulitani of Syrian provenance) just because some European has come along 3000 years later, conceiving studies to benefit himself and decided his direct ancestors were there in your stead.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nice to have you onboard. I've read, studied, and quoted you from two of your works in Dr. Van Sertima's journals.
A while back I raised issues here (and on the old sister forum) as to the relations and impact of the north Mediterraneans/Aegeans on the original indigenous littoral and further inland North African populations.
I posit, based on certain Minoan depictions of what I assume to be the indigenous eastern Libyans, that north Meds/Aegeans were culturally absorbed by but physically altered primarily the littoral North African populations (most notably those west of Tunisie).
The Meshwesh invasion of eastern Libya and ancient Egypt is another thing I base my supposition on. Certain "Sea Peoples" also have esh suffixed ethnonyms. None of these peoples names, though all appearing in AEL documents, seem to bear AEL lexical value.
I hold that the Imazighen only go back to the Meshwesh, have little to no relationship to the THHNW known to the AE's, and only became known as TMHHW by way of generalization.
I'll bump up the threads delving into these points for your input and analysis.
The bolding of your writings in other members responses is an automatic UBB function to aid identifying whose text was written by who. It can be defeated but that's up to the replying individual to chose to do or not to do. Hi-liting text helps emphasize the point being made (or debated. And make no mistake, the main thrust here is debate not discussion).
It's a rough and tumble crew here, but stick around for a while. Teach yourself basic population genetics. It's the powerfullest tool we have in modern Africana studies. I came here with a standard Africana background, much like your own, and after applying population genetics made strides in linking once baffling components of ethnography into a more sensable and stronger chain.
I own Bates and Palmer, and while they're good for cultural, linguistic, literary, etc., understanding nothing can reveal population origins the way genetics does. What those old scholars can do for us is help interpret some of the movement indicated by the genetics. We're moving on into the 21st century we can't remain shackled outside progress by late 19th and early 20th century methodologies.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty.
Yes this is correct...also:
The Egyptians called the population of the neighboring Libya `Tehenu.' They were pictured with dark complexion and curly hair [Ahmed Fakhir, `Siwa Oasis', (Cairo, 1973), p. 75] Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
I believe the Tehenou and the Temehou aren't references to the same people.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I believe the Tehenou and the Temehou aren't references to the same people.
Tehenou seem to have been 1st associated with the Siwa Oasis.
Temehou (?) - you tell me.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc. In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula.
^ Assuming that this is so, how does it lead to the conclusion that they originate across the Sinai Peninsula?
It is already agreed the Berber Languages and perhaps even Semitic originated in East Africa, so even if we accept what you say, I'm not sure it proves what you claim?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia.
Are you saying that the Afar also come from Arabia?
Again let's say the Taureg and Afar and Fulani and others introduced the camel throughout North Africa - how would that prove they originate in Arabia?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century
Are you now implying the Beja originate in SouthWest Asia. (?)
It seems that your thesis is simply this - any East African who can ever been shown to have any contact with the levantine - must have originated in the Levantine. (??)
How is this any better than the worst of the Eurocentrist and Hamitic hypothesis? ?
^ sigh -> this is why you would be well served to study genetics. it would put a stop to the 'anything goes' approach to population history which wastes too much of our time as studients of african history. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
I have to respectfully disagree about your use of the term Imazighen since the Romans and Byzantines used the term Mezikes for the same people they termed "Ethiopians". For them the "Mazikes" were one of the Ethiopian groups. From what I have read that term has only recently been adopted by certain coastal Berbers, like the Kabyle, for nationalist purposes.
From what I've come across, even Tuaregs refer to their languages under the general term of Tamazigh. What is your evidence that Romans invented this term, as opposed to have heard it from North Africans at the time? These African groups rarely refer to themselves by ethno-constructs from outsiders.
quote:qoucela By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty.
If memory serves me correctly, the Tehenou were the earlier groups, usually represented in dark skin hues, while the Tamehou appellation was applied to the 'deshret' pale looking figures.
quote:qoucela:
Anyway, I'm afraid my point about the Tuareg has been missed because of certain general lack of knowledge of ancient history of Africa and the ancient Near East Levant - not so much by you as by some others I've been speaking to and, I'm guessing what evidence I do provide on this blog is not going to be of much use for now.
What point was missed, and specifically by whom?
quote:qoucela:
Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc.
Are these based on specific Roman sources, or...?
quote:qoucela:
In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula. The Ihaggaren Tuareg are said to have named the "hills of Hagar" the region of Hoggar or Ahaggar. The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia.
When did they bring the camel to Africa?
quote:qoucela:
When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century and agrees that these were likely the same as the people now suspected to have been called Midianites (or Madiau in Josephus), one should not be surprised to find such other names as the sons of Keturah ( Ketu south node of the moon) or Hagar (Rahu north node of the moon) - said to be the same person in Muslim and Judaic writings - and Madiau (Bedja), Afar or Iforas (Epher or Afra, Pharusii), the Kel Inneg Tuareg and Danakil or Anag of the Bedja), Ephah (Yafaai), and other related peoples of Hagar and Keturah today all among the dark-skinned groups in the Red Sea area on both sides. I am in the process of writing a paper on this so I won't elaborate any more here. I believe as the ancients that the Tuareg are an eastern branch of the Bedja.
The Beja, like Tuaregs, speak languages that are exclusive to the African continent...and like the Tuareg, their bio-history places them within the African continent.
quote:qoucela:
Would like to add again though that becoming familiar with population genetics of Africa quite a few years ago had led me to believe that one might be able to determine biological relationships, but not necessarily the remote geographical origins of people, especially at this stage in its development.
This is where you made the miscalculation. DNA can be quite good trackers of remote geographical origins of people.
quote:qoucela:
This is why you see scholars such as Strouhal interviewed on the Discovery channel still claiming that North Africa and the Sahara many thousands of years ago were occupied early on by both "whites" from the Near East and "black Africans" and other supposedly educational TV programs, claiming pharoanic Egyptians were essentially a non-black population while Nubia was black African - the land of the so called black Pharaohs.
I should have known it was coming. When I first began in the 1980s to look at population studies done to determine the origin of "the Berbers", I noticed these studies were usually being done on peoples that should never have been considered related to the original Berber-speakers- Tuareg or Kel Tamashek (Imazighen, Imoshagh) - in the first place. Because geneticists that were specializing in research on their ascertained Berbers(Kabyle, Shawia, and several northern Algerian and Moroccan tribes) were for the most part lacking historical, archeological and linguistic expertise of North Africa, they could only come to such conclusions as "the Berbers are largely of Eurasian and southern Mediterranean affiliation" and to such theories that fair-skinned Berbers must be essentially Caucasoid and have come arrived back in Africa over ten thousand years ago to help in the developent of the Saharan holocene. In fact, studies on physical anthropology had proven that most populations around the ancient Mediterranean and throughout the Near East involved in the neolithic agricultural revolution, including both the entire area of the Mediterranean, north and south, were greatly differentiated osteologically from modern day populations. As different as black and white.
This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant tend to be mesocranic and even brachycephalic as in the case of the Levant and southern Italy - unlike the ancient coastal North Africans and mostancient Mediterraneans previous to 1000 B.C. Tuareg on the other hand are often ultra-dolicocephalic and have many features in common with the Nilotes and Ethiopians.
Many Western and Central Africans also show more mesocranic connections, no doubt due to their being evolved from mixtures between the ancient dolicochocephals, mesocranic and brachycephals once occupying the Nile region and Sahara region. I understand a lot of scholars don't like to rely on cranial cephalic assessments any more, and when one looks at what was discovered by such early physical anthropologists as Sergi, Mellarte (Chatal Huyuk), Haddon, Grafton Elliot Smith and Coon one can easily understand why. For example, how could the Canaan of the Phoenicians be predominantly dolichocephalic and yet modern day populations of the same location considerably brachycephalic. Nationalism gets in the way. The fact is the Phoenicians have long disappeared from the Levant.
The ancient Levant, except for parts of Israel Palestine/Lashich etc. also until around 900 BC (probably due to some drastic change of population) became largely occupied by a stockier built, brachycephalic people ancestral to today's "Middle Eastern" population of that region.
These sort of early anthropological assessments have now been discredited; many of these anthropological bagages about "Mediterranean" types were justified under the banner of studying "Paleolithic" crania from Europe [e.g., the likes of Cro-Magnon], and crania from late Paleolithic to early Holocene specimens from North Africa. However, population genetics has shown that the bulk of the gene pool of contemporary coastal North African "berber speakers" is not of paleolithic provenance.
quote:qoucela:
Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians, when in fact, the earlier genetic studies based on presence of genetic traits show that the homogeneity that was present in ancient Egypt stopped dead around the time of the Ptolemaic Greek intrusion into Egypt.
Actually, population genetics notes that there was back-migration into the Nile Valley throughout various timeframes, and adding to the indigenous gene pool.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant.
Agreed.
quote:Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians.
Careful.
These comments are weak generalisations - state which genetic studies you are referencing so we can assess their conclusions specifically.
Posted by abdulkarem3 (Member # 12885) on :
quote:Sorry to be so verbose, but I forgot to mention another frequently missed point. The fact that there are few people left in Arabia with DNA similar to Tuarek and Bedja says absolutely nothing of those ancient populations. The Tuarek and other tribes that left into Africa brought their names and DNA with them, those that remained have since mixed with other people.
I am so with that. I heared this from a moroccan who said that the berbers came from s. europe, levant, arabia, and east africa.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I heared this from a moroccan who said
^The title/topic of this thread is 'anthroprometry and genetics.'
This kind of 'argument' is known as heresay. Heresay is not evidence. Heresay is the 'weak' semanticists attempt to bolster and unsound position in the absense of any evidence.
quote:The fact that there are few people left in Arabia with DNA similar to Tuarek and Bedja says absolutely nothing of those ancient populations
How many people there are in Arabia is completely irrelevant. There are 1 billion people in India, but they don't have the Native African lineages of the Toureg and Beja either.
But all other Africans do.
Lineage is *ancestry*.
You can't make Beja or Toureg imaginery immigrants into Africa because genetics shows they have the same *native* lineages - the same ancestry - as other Africans.
You can't make them imaginary Arabians because Arabians do not have these lineages [ancestry].
The fact is that the Toureg and Beja originate in Africa according to genetics and linguistics and archeology, historical record and anthropology.
You have no evidence from any discipline to the contrary because none exists.
quote:Tuarek and other tribes that left into Africa brought their names and DNA with them
If this were true their DNA would be distinct from Native Africans...yet it isn't.
However it is distinct from Arabians.
You really need to study genetics.
Between you with your Arabian Toureg and Winters and his Japanese Mandingo, well.... You are both asserting something that can be scientifically disproven, and asserting it ultimately based on ignorance of science.
It's as if you are claiming the world is flat, and not round, and denying the simple trigonometry that falsifies such a claim.
Such denial is only possible if you are ignorant of mathamatics and willfully so.
Same with genetics and your fanciful-origin hypothesis.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Who is this 'qoucela' guy anyway? Is this our Berber fellow, Mazigh?
At first, his post seemed to be refuting the Hamitic hypothesis, then it turns out he is supporting it with his claims of Tuareg and Beja originating from Africa!
Rasol is correct that such claims are refuted by all 4 disciplines of linguistics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and genetics.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Isn't quocela Dana Reynolds-Marniche?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Who is this 'qoucela' guy anyway? Is this our Berber fellow, Mazigh?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Post edited by Djehuti: Who is this 'qoucela' guy anyway? Is this our Berber fellow, Mazigh?
At first, his post seemed to be refuting the Hamitic hypothesis, then it turns out he is supporting it with his claims of Tuareg and Beja originating from ARABIA!
Rasol is correct that such claims are refuted by all 4 disciplines of linguistics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and genetics.
^Is what I meant to say.
Is this the same Dana Reynolds-Marniche who wrote various articles and books including some for Ivan Van-Sertima? I'm surprised that her of all people could be making such a claim now of Arabian originated Tuareg and Beja.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Post edited by Djehuti: Who is this 'qoucela' guy anyway? Is this our Berber fellow, Mazigh?
At first, his post seemed to be refuting the Hamitic hypothesis, then it turns out he is supporting it with his claims of Tuareg and Beja originating from ARABIA!
Rasol is correct that such claims are refuted by all 4 disciplines of linguistics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and genetics.
^Is what I meant to say.
Is this the same Dana Reynolds-Marniche who wrote various articles and books including some for Ivan Van-Sertima? I'm surprised that her of all people could be making such a claim now of Arabian originated Tuareg and Beja.
This is done for the same perverse reasoning that causes some Africanists scholars to attempt to move the Berber language to Arabia, or even Germany.
They are trying to show that the original inhabitants of the Sahara were Black.
They accept/assume that Berber means 'not black'... so they try to show that Berber are not native to Africa.
The folly involved in this effort is somewhat exasperating because it's and utterly self defeating discourse on their part, but they can't see that.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^LOL It seems that such 'Africanists' have bought into the debunked Eurocentric notion of non-black Berbers, even though all disciplines have refuted such a notion and even common sense says otherwise with the obviously large numbers of blacks who speak Berber languages today!
Such misguided views seem to be just as illogical or even moreso than that of the Eurocents.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Reynolds-Marniche is heavily reliant on certain legends as well as Hebrew, Greco-Latin, and Arabic "best guess" etymologies and histories.
But the primary Kel Tagelmust origin mythos has them trekking furhter inland from toward the western coast under a queen and her maidservant whom they claim as their progenitors.
Nowhere does Reynolds-Marniche posit non-black origins for either Kel Tagelmust or Beja. She is of an old school which posits the existance of original peninsular culture "Arabian Kushites" who decreased in number and importance via "miscegenation" over time.
I notice a lot of inattentiveness to detail in misunderstanding some peoples work. Don't know if it's due simply to the desire to fearfully ridicule what one disagrees with, or to fuss and fight over nothing or perhaps printing out and using old fashion tools of analysis (hi-liter, short scribbled notes, footer definitions notes etc.) could aid in better understanding the details of what someone posts in lieu of falsely accusing them of what they never wrote and having them waste time in needless defensive replies.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:She is of an old school which posits the existance of original peninsular culture "Arabian Kushites"
Doubtless the earliest population of Arabia was Black - this is implied by the Afrisan language classification.
However you know there is no evidence that Cushitic or Berber speakers originate in Arabia.
quote:Reynolds-Marniche is heavily reliant on certain legends as well as Hebrew, Greco-Latin, and Arabic "best guess" etymologies and histories.
But the primary Kel Tagelmust origin mythos has them trekking furhter inland from toward the western coast under a queen and her maidservant whom they claim as their progenitors.
I agree. I found her discourse hear somewhat disappointing and surprisingly so; selectively reference of myth - disregard for bioanthropology.
I don't except that she 'left' because of ridicule though.
I think her ideas came under scrutiny and she seemed ill-prepared to back up her claims.
Sorry, but that's how it appeared to me.
No scholar can be 'that' delecate or afford to be.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
There was only one or two words of ridicule directed at her. All the rest of the replies essentially, and for the most part, successfully dismantled the ediface of "Arabian Kushite legendary/primitive historians origin for some things in mainland continental Africa."
I don't know about delicate, but I don't blame her one whit for not wasting her time rewriting here what one can read, and study, in her article appearing in Golden Age of the Moor.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Fair point.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
..
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
I agree. I found her discourse hear somewhat disappointing and surprisingly so; selectively reference of myth - disregard for bioanthropology.
I don't except that she 'left' because of ridicule though.
I think her ideas came under scrutiny and she seemed ill-prepared to back up her claims.
Sorry, but that's how it appeared to me.
No scholar can be 'that' delecate or afford to be.
That's just it. Anyone who professes to be a scholar and cannot withstand scrutiny, well...what then in a public arena when other scholars won't hesitate to hold your work to intense scrutiny? Such scrutiny should be expected [by any scholar] to happen whether it is in public face-to-face forums, or in this day and age - online, by critiques of any background.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I notice a lot of inattentiveness to detail in misunderstanding some peoples work. Don't know if it's due simply to the desire to fearfully ridicule what one disagrees with, or to fuss and fight over nothing or perhaps printing out and using old fashion tools of analysis (hi-liter, short scribbled notes, footer definitions notes etc.) could aid in better understanding the details of what someone posts in lieu of falsely accusing them of what they never wrote and having them waste time in needless defensive replies.
Takruri, I hope this wasn't in reference to me because my critical comments weren't in anyway directed to Reynolds-Marniche but to Clyde Winters and his ilk who claim Berbers and original Semites to be not black at all!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Djehuti
It was just a general observation about this forum. I too am often guilty, so the levying is sort of a self-critique.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Didn't know exactly where I should post this and didn't want to start a new thread but noticed the same topic was last discussed here, and so ...
A post by Midogbe on ancient south of Atlas north of Sahara ethnies and the Tamazight term akli prompt this loosely related post.
The era between Byzantium and Islam seems key in understanding the arrival of Kel Tamasheq identity as it would later lend itself to Kel Tagelmust units.
A folk's tribal geneaology, though couched in lineage terms, doesn't necessarily correspond to modern/Euro/American ideas of biological genetic kinship relation. And I might add, with absolutely no apology, nor does it need to fit in the foreign detribalized western scientific straight jacket which is this forum's modus operendi.
All "Tuareg" don't have a single origin. Many clans in the Sahara came together to form those people we call "Tuareg." Some who moved south from Tunisia/Tripolitania took on a kel identity. Some from what's now the Morocco/Western Sahara southside of the Atlas and south of the Atlas went into the Sahara taking on a kel identity. Even those of the Hawwara who went Saharan rather than Egyptian or Maghribi made a kel identity for themselves.
To remain in sync with the passing of time, the "Tuareg" weren't the only or earliest veil wearers in the Sahara.
These "Veiled Ones" were the Mulathimun (wearers of the litham/veil) aka the Sanhaja al~Murabitun dynasty, not the chronologically later "Tuareg" called Kel Tagelmust of the Kel Tamasheq. Many of the Zenagaal Mulathimun were themselves very dark.
If one of the great divisions of Imazighen were the Sanhaja, then in turn one segment of Sanhaja were those who lived in the Sahara and wore the veil. The veil/litham/gelmus was a sign of distinction and identity for the al~Murabitun and no one in Almorabid dynasty Spain dare wear the veil if they in fact weren't of al~Murabitun.
All the following Saharan folk were Sanhaja and muLaththamun or veil-wearers:
Anbiya
Djuddala
Kakdam
Lamtuna
Lamta
Masufa
Targa
Tizki
Wurika
The veil was a fashionable necessity of post Roman/Byzantine era Saharan Sanhaja that became a uniform accessory of early Islamic era al~Murabitun far from the desert up in what would become Spain to finally be retained en vogue in our current era by the Kel Tagelmoust.
Ah, but did early metal age Saharans also wear the veil? Rock art and seemingly fanciful Greco-Latin accounts of humans with eyes in their chests or similar such approximations as heard from their supra-Saharan informants may very likely indicate that they did.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Is there any documentation for any Kel buying European females or males from the markets of the coastal Arabized Imazighen and Arabs?
I think the lightest skinned "Tuareg" are descendents of the "whites"
(Pliny's Leucæthiopians -- c. 50 CE; Book 5.8 -- and Procopius' fair-haired leucoderms -- c. 550 CE; Book 4.13.29 -- in the deserts south of the Mauretanii)
that the first ancestral Imaheren found already in the Sahara upon their arrival.
The Kel had/have a tri-tiered traditional society of
* amahar ("noble") -- descent from Tin Hinan, a Moroccan, by legend * amrid ("vassal") -- descent from Takama servant of Tin Hinan, by legend * akl ("servant") -- kin of the above plus outsider captives [non-chattels] attached to the family
A person's assignment to either generally follows the birth mother.
There're also "outlier" social groupings * inislimen (Islamic "clerics") * haratin (oasis sharecropping farmers) * enaden (smiths, craftsmen)
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: think the lightest skinned "Tuareg" are descendents of the "whites" (Pliny's Leucæthiopians and Procopius' fair-haired leucoderms of the deserts south of the Mauretanii) that the first ancestral Imaheren found already in the Sahara upon their arrival.
I agree with this part of Arredi's assessment....
In conclusion, we propose that the Y-chromosomal genetic structure observed in North Africa is mainly the result of an expansion of early food-producing societies. Moreover, following Arioti and Oxby (1997), we speculate that the economy of those societies relied initially more on herding than on agriculture, because pastoral economies probably supported lower numbers of individuals, thus favoring genetic drift, and showed more mobility than agriculturalists, thus allowing gene flow.
Some authors believe that languages families are unlikely to be >10 KY old and that their diffusion was associated with the diffusion of agriculture (Diamond and Bellwood 2003).
Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have involved people speaking a protoAfro-Asiatic language.
These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment *containing few humans.*
When this passage is cited, not everyone is gathering the significance of the -containing few humans- , as it pertains to the overall theme and title of the piece:
A Predominantly **Neolithic** Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment *containing few humans.*
When this passage is cited, not everyone is gathering the significance of the -containing few humans- , as it pertains to the overall theme and title of the piece:
A Predominantly **Neolithic** Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa.
Notwithstanding what you are emphasizing, it is that same statement that I find questionable. And here's why: it is suggested that the presence of J lineages in north Africa occurs before E-M81 presence there. It is also suggesting that these E and J would have arrived from the "Near East", because if J isn't deemed to be African MRCA, then where does that leave us? This in turn questions that context of the point of origin of these said "Neolithic Afro-Asiatic" speakers.
And you may recall the following, because we had gone through it:
I'm inclined to go with Nebel and Wells on the Islamic era spread of the J lineages into North Africa in the east-to-west direction. I think the controversy has something to do with the distribution of J and E3b (specifically E3b1) lineages, which are both rare in the greater part of Europe, but are relatively more represented in southern Europe and North Africa, with a decreasing east-to-west gradient of various J lineages. It should be kept in mind though, as with the various J east-to-west decrease in Southern Europe, E3b has a east-to-west decrease in frequency in Southern Europe, while E3b is well represented in North Africa, mainly with E3b2 increasing in a east-to-west direction. Semino et al. do a decent job of supporting Nebel and Wells position:
"In particular, the spatial distributions of J-M172*, J-M267, E-M78, and E-M123 indicate expansions from the Middle East toward Europe that most likely occurred during and after the Neolithic, that of J-M102 illustrates population expansions from the southern Balkans, and that of E-M81 reveals recent gene flow from North Africa. Distinct histories of J-M267* lineages are suggested: an expansion from the Middle East toward East Africa and Europe and a more-recent diffusion (marked by the YCAIIa-22/YCAIIb-22 motif) of Arab -people from the southern part of the Middle East toward North Africa..."
"...The lower internal variance of J-M267 in the Middle East and North Africa, relative to Europe and Ethiopia, is suggestive of two different migrations. In the absence of additional binary polymorphisms allowing further informative subdivision of J-M267, the YCAII microsatellite system provides important insights. The majority of J-M267 Y chromosomes harbor the single-banded motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the Middle East (>70%) and in North Africa (>90%), whereas this association is much less frequent in Ethiopia and only sporadically found in southern Europe..."
Furthermore,
"...the first migration, probably in Neolithic times, brought J-M267 to Ethiopia and Europe, whereas a second, more-recent migration diffused the clade harboring the microsatellite motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the southern part of the Middle East and in North Africa. In this regard, it is worth noting that the median expansion time of the J-M267-YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 clade was estimated to be 8.74.3 ky, by use of the TD approach (see fig. 4 legend), and that this clade includes the modal haplotype DYS19-14/DYS388-17/DYS390-23/DYS391-11/DYS392-11 of the Galilee (Nebel et al. 2000) and of Moroccan Arabs (Bosch et al. 2001). These results are consistent with the proposal that this haplotype was diffused in recent time by Arabs who, mainly from the 7th century A.D., expanded to northern Africa (Nebel et al. 2002)..."
On the J-distribution...
"...Finally, the J-M172* lineages display a decreasing frequency gradient from the Near East toward western Europe and strongly contribute to the overall gradient of Hg J. J-M267 is notable, since this haplogroup shows its highest frequencies in the Middle East, North Africa, and Ethiopia (fig. 2B) and its lowest in Europe, having been observed only in the Mediterranean area. Of its five subhaplogroups, only two have been observed: the J-M365 (in two Turks and one Georgian) and the new subclade J-M390 (in one Lebanese)… - Semino et al. 2004
Arredi et al., on the other hand, seem to draw their conclusion mainly from historical records on Arab conquests:
"Early Neolithic sites are documented in the eastern part of North Africa and later ones in the west, which would be compatible with an east-to-west movement at this time, and this is also the case for the Arab expansion. Historical records of the Arab conquest, however, suggest that its demographic impact must have been limited (McEvedy 1980)." - Arredi et al. 2004
Arredi et al., unlike Semino et al. and Nebel et al., don't provide us with much genetic reconstruction in support of the above position on the J distribution in Northwest Africa
^Where there appears to be contention, is the notion of whether much of the east-to-west spread of J lineages occurred during the Neolithic, or during the Islamic era. In my opinion, Nebel et al. and subsequently Semino et al. did a more satisfying job of making their case for the latter scenario, than Arredi et al, who simply refer to McEvedy's work on historical records of Arab conquest. I must admit though, that it would be a good idea for one to investigate these historical records further, so as to perhaps better grasp Arredi's position.
quote: Originally posted by Thought:
However, what she doesn't mention is the fact the this spread is based upon the Saharan-Sudanese culture and NOT a Near Eastern Neolithic culture.
Perhaps, Arredi et al. were influenced by Peter Bellwood's position on the Neolithic expansion; after all, both him and J. Diamond were referenced in the study. This would hold a view which contrasts what is stated above, in that, agriculture spread along with 'proto Afro-Asiatic' from the Levant... or perhaps, Arredi didn't feel the need to expound on this, presumably because she tought all that was relevant to the study, is the awareness of 'Afro-Asiatic' speakers being primarly involved in the Neolithic population spread across North Africa.
"we propose that the Y-chromosomal genetic structure observed in North Africa is mainly the result of an expansion of early food-producing societies. Moreover, following Arioti and Oxby (1997), we speculate that the economy of those societies relied initially more on herding than on agriculture, because pastoral economies probably supported lower numbers of individuals, thus favoring genetic drift, and showed more mobility than agriculturalists, thus allowing gene flow. Some authors believe that languages families are unlikely to be >10 KY old and that their diffusion was associated with the diffusion of agriculture (Diamond and Bellwood 2003). Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have involved people speaking a protoAfro-Asiatic language. These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans. " - Arredi et al. 2004
Knowing that E3b predominates the coastal Northwest African landscape, specifically the E-M81 derivatives, and Hg R is very rare:
What is Arredi et al.'s proposed evidence of J presence in north Africa prior to E3b carriers, i.e. E-M81 derivatives, rather than after arrival of the latter?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol:
These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment *containing few humans.*
When this passage is cited, not everyone is gathering the significance of the -containing few humans- , as it pertains to the overall theme and title of the piece:
A Predominantly **Neolithic** Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa.
quote:Notwithstanding what you are emphasizing, it is that same statement that I find questionable. And here's why: it is suggested that the presence of J lineages in north Africa before E-M78.
No, not in the passage that I cited, but you are right about...
quote: It is also suggesting that these E and J would have arrived from the "Near East", because if J isn't deemed to be African MRCA, then where does that leave us?
My view is as follows - J is a red hering, because the Berber are not predominently J, nor is their any signature J lineage that is Berber.
In fact I will quote geneticist Spencer Wells on this subject, because I think it cuts to the point:
Most men living in the area surrounding Carthage before the Phoenicians arrived should probably have carried variations of the M96, which is the aboriginal type in North and West Africa."
"No more than 20 percent of the men we sampled had Y Chromosomes that originated in the Middle East. [Haplogroup J, M168 to M89]
Most carried the aboriginal North African M96 [Haplotype E] pattern." Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol:
These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment *containing few humans.*
When this passage is cited, not everyone is gathering the significance of the -containing few humans- , as it pertains to the overall theme and title of the piece:
A Predominantly **Neolithic** Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa.
quote:Notwithstanding what you are emphasizing, it is that same statement that I find questionable. And here's why: it is suggested that the presence of J lineages in north Africa before E-M78.
No, not in the passage that I cited, but you are right about...
That was a technicality error in my post, which was corrected in my post above to "E-M81". Apparently, you replied before I made some editions.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Anyway for those who would like a scorecard, shows relationshiop of lineages to mutations....
Groups I II and III are A, B and E and originate in AFrica.
Note by reading down the tree you can see the relationship between YAP [DE], M96 [E], PN2 [E3], and thence E3a and E3b.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Note also the relationship between M81-E3b2 [Berber/African], and it's father M35 [E3b] [East African].
Notice that E3b and E3b2 are non existant in Oman.
Notice that both E3b and E3b2 are present in Egypt. [ignore the denotion of "Arab" Egyptians, since by this studies definition all Egyptians are Arabs]
Notice that E3b is present throughout Africa.
Notice the spread of E3b3 into Oman also from Africa..... E3b3 is also present in Ethiopia [Amhara esp.], however Berber have no E3b3.
Berber do not appear to have *anything* to do with Arabia genetically.
It's actually surprising...the degree to which the evidence reveals this, in my opinion.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Continuing...look at the Wairak Bantu of Kenya, with underived E3b in very high percentile.
They are Bantu speakers but their male lineage largely denoted native East Africans prior to the Bantu migration.
Look at the Tutsi - Carlton Coon claimed they came from Arabia.
Here they are have 100% African lineages.
Coon's anthropometry based claims are thus falsified by genetics.
Good luck finding a European population with 100% European Y chromosome lineages.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Berber do not appear to have *anything* to do with Arabia genetically.
Which is interesting in that, notwithstanding the correspondence with which they posit E3b and J lineages in North Africa, after which E-M81 in North Africa is supposed to have arose in situ, Arredi et al. themselves note, in that same study in question:
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in fig. 1A for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa. The TMRCA....E3b2 (2.8-8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa.....Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.....In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is rare in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.
- Arredi et al., A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
Furthermore, they were aware of E-M81 chromosomes south of Egypt, as attested to this acknowledgement:
Second, just two haplogroups predominate within North Africa, together making up almost two-thirds of the male lineages: E3b2 and J* (42% and 20%, respectively). E3b2 is rare outside North Africa (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004 and references therein), and is otherwise known only from Mali, Niger, and Sudan to the immediate south, and the Near East and Southern Europe at very low frequencies....
...and of course, ages of the E-M81 chromosomes in Sudan would be instructive.
Not sure what specific location is in question here, by the mention of "Near East" above, or what it is supposedly based on, but I've yet to come duplication in any other study of the location of E-M81 chromosomes therein, and this even as Arredi et al. had just then noted its rarity outside of North Africa. Its small presence in Southern Europe is already understood from Tamazight/Berber migrations therein over the course of history.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Berber do not appear to have *anything* to do with Arabia genetically.
Which is interesting in that, notwithstanding the correspondence with which they posit E3b and J lineages in North Africa, after which E-M81 in North Africa is supposed to have arose in situ, Arredi et al. themselves note, in that same study in question:
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in fig. 1A for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa. The TMRCA....E3b2 (2.8-8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa.....Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.....In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is rare in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.
- Arredi et al., A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
Furthermore, they were aware of E-M81 chromosomes south of Egypt, as attested to this acknowledgement:
Second, just two haplogroups predominate within North Africa, together making up almost two-thirds of the male lineages: E3b2 and J* (42% and 20%, respectively). E3b2 is rare outside North Africa (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004 and references therein), and is otherwise known only from Mali, Niger, and Sudan to the immediate south, and the Near East and Southern Europe at very low frequencies....
...and of course, ages of the E-M81 chromosomes in Sudan would be instructive.
Not sure what specific location is in question here, by the mention of "Near East" above, or what it is supposedly based on, but I've yet to come duplication in any other study of the location of E-M81 chromosomes therein, and this even as Arredi et al. had just then noted its rarity outside of North Africa. Its small presence in Southern Europe is already understood from Tamazight/Berber migrations therein over the course of history.
E-M81 is not a language.
Lineage is not a language.
Language is not a lineage.
Berber is a language.
E-M81 is not a lineage.
The two are NOT the same.
E-M81 was spread by AFRICAN PEOPLE carrying a GENE not a LANGUAGE. The fact of E-M81 in certain areas outside of Africa is a reflection of POPULATION movements, not necessarily LANGUAGE movements.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Correct, however people have lineages and speak languages.
It's possible to use language and lineage to study population movement.
Sometimes populations migrate and carry languages with them, and sometimes populations migrate and the languages aren't carried.
However a population that migrates must carry their genes with them.
A good example of this is African Americans.
It would be very difficult to trace AA origins thru the langauges they speak.
However the genetic signature of the their African origin is very strong.
Another example of this would be Native Americans, for example Mexicans....who mostly speak Spanish, which accurately captures European migrations into Mexico, but not the linguistic origins of *native* Mexcian people.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Berber do not appear to have *anything* to do with Arabia genetically.
Which is interesting in that, notwithstanding the correspondence with which they posit E3b and J lineages in North Africa, after which E-M81 in North Africa is supposed to have arose in situ, Arredi et al. themselves note, in that same study in question:
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in fig. 1A for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa. The TMRCA....E3b2 (2.8-8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa.....Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.....In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is rare in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.
- Arredi et al., A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
Furthermore, they were aware of E-M81 chromosomes south of Egypt, as attested to this acknowledgement:
Second, just two haplogroups predominate within North Africa, together making up almost two-thirds of the male lineages: E3b2 and J* (42% and 20%, respectively). E3b2 is rare outside North Africa (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004 and references therein), and is otherwise known only from Mali, Niger, and Sudan to the immediate south, and the Near East and Southern Europe at very low frequencies....
...and of course, ages of the E-M81 chromosomes in Sudan would be instructive.
Not sure what specific location is in question here, by the mention of "Near East" above, or what it is supposedly based on, but I've yet to come duplication in any other study of the location of E-M81 chromosomes therein, and this even as Arredi et al. had just then noted its rarity outside of North Africa. Its small presence in Southern Europe is already understood from Tamazight/Berber migrations therein over the course of history. [
E-
M81 is not a language.
Lineage is not a language.
Language is not a lineage.
Berber is a language.
E-M81 is not a lineage.
The two are NOT the same.
E-M81 was spread by AFRICAN PEOPLE carrying a GENE not a LANGUAGE. The fact of E-M81 in certain areas outside of Africa is a reflection of POPULATION movements, not necessarily LANGUAGE movements.
Non-sequitur. Who said they are the same thing? You are reading imaginery things.
On the other hand, rather than disputing what hasn't been said, how about showing otherwise to what you are specifically citing.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Sometimes populations migrate and carry languages with them, and sometimes populations migrate and the languages aren't carried.
However a population that migrates must carry their genes with them.
A good example of this is African Americans.
It would be very difficult to trace AA origins thru the langauges they speak.
However the genetic signature of the their African origin is very strong.
Put it this way: most of the time, people migrate and carry their 'pre-existing' languages with them; they don't just cease to speak it upon arrival. In some cases, due to acculturation, motivated by the socio-political/cultural environment in which the migrants arrived, this language may or may not change.
African captives who were brought to the Americas likely came with their pre-existing languages, until over time lost it, because of pressure of the need to assimilate into the predominating socio-cultural organizations which they were confronted with, while others had decided to work with fusion of various languages/dialects of the heterogenous African migrants to be able to communicate with another, essentially giving rise to a new common language.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Berber do not appear to have *anything* to do with Arabia genetically.
Which is interesting in that, notwithstanding the correspondence with which they posit E3b and J lineages in North Africa, after which E-M81 in North Africa is supposed to have arose in situ, Arredi et al. themselves note, in that same study in question:
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in fig. 1A for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa. The TMRCA....E3b2 (2.8-8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa.....Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.....In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is rare in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.
- Arredi et al., A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
Furthermore, they were aware of E-M81 chromosomes south of Egypt, as attested to this acknowledgement:
Second, just two haplogroups predominate within North Africa, together making up almost two-thirds of the male lineages: E3b2 and J* (42% and 20%, respectively). E3b2 is rare outside North Africa (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004 and references therein), and is otherwise known only from Mali, Niger, and Sudan to the immediate south, and the Near East and Southern Europe at very low frequencies....
...and of course, ages of the E-M81 chromosomes in Sudan would be instructive.
Not sure what specific location is in question here, by the mention of "Near East" above, or what it is supposedly based on, but I've yet to come duplication in any other study of the location of E-M81 chromosomes therein, and this even as Arredi et al. had just then noted its rarity outside of North Africa. Its small presence in Southern Europe is already understood from Tamazight/Berber migrations therein over the course of history. [
E-
M81 is not a language.
Lineage is not a language.
Language is not a lineage.
Berber is a language.
E-M81 is not a lineage.
The two are NOT the same.
E-M81 was spread by AFRICAN PEOPLE carrying a GENE not a LANGUAGE. The fact of E-M81 in certain areas outside of Africa is a reflection of POPULATION movements, not necessarily LANGUAGE movements.
Non-sequitur. Who said they are the same thing? You are reading imaginery things.
On the other hand, rather than disputing what hasn't been said, how about showing otherwise to what you are specifically citing.
It seems you were saying that "Berbers" were responsible for bringing E-M81 to Europe, which is quite INCORRECT. E-M81 was carried to Europe by people and whe DONT know what language they spoke. All E-M81 carriers did not speak Berber as far as we know.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Sometimes populations migrate and carry languages with them, and sometimes populations migrate and the languages aren't carried.
However a population that migrates must carry their genes with them.
A good example of this is African Americans.
It would be very difficult to trace AA origins thru the langauges they speak.
However the genetic signature of the their African origin is very strong.
Put it this way: most of the time, people migrate and carry their 'pre-existing' languages with them; they don't just cease to speak it upon arrival. In some cases, due to acculturation, motivated by the socio-political/cultural environment in which the migrants arrived, this language may or may not change.
African captives who were brought to the Americas likely came with their pre-existing languages, until over time lost it, because of pressure of the need to assimilate into the predominating socio-cultural organizations which they were confronted with, while others had decided to work with fusion of various languages/dialects of the heterogenous African migrants to be able to communicate with another, essentially giving rise to a new common language.
All populations with the same lineages do not speak the same language. Therefore whatever lineages are found in AAs do not determine their genetic lineages. Lineage is lineage and determined by ancestry, whereas language in determined by cultural factors which have no hard connection to genetic ancestry, versus a loose linkage, depending on population specifics.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
It seems you were saying that "Berbers" were responsible for bringing E-M81 to Europe, which is quite INCORRECT.
Yes, that is exactly what I was conveying. What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?
quote:Doug M:
E-M81 was carried to Europe by people and whe DONT know what language they spoke.
No brainer: "Berber" speakers are people. What would you have them be otherwise?
quote:Doug M:
All E-M81 carriers did not speak Berber as far as we know.
All E-M81 may not speak "Tamazight"/"Berber", which is why it is relatively rare outside "Berber"/Tamazight speaking groups. Has that ever crossed your mind? This issue here is linguistic-genetic correlation, not to mention factoring in archeology.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Put it this way: most of the time, people migrate and carry their 'pre-existing' languages with them; they don't just cease to speak it upon arrival. In some cases, due to acculturation, motivated by the socio-political/cultural environment in which the migrants arrived, this language may or may not change.
African captives who were brought to the Americas likely came with their pre-existing languages, until over time lost it, because of pressure of the need to assimilate into the predominating socio-cultural organizations which they were confronted with, while others had decided to work with fusion of various languages/dialects of the heterogenous African migrants to be able to communicate with another, essentially giving rise to a new common language.
All populations with the same lineages do not speak the same language.
How does this relate to what you are replying? Please demonstrate it, by singling out the specific statement that you've cited, which it is supposedly replying.
quote:Doug M:
Therefore whatever lineages are found in AAs do not determine their genetic lineages.
Now of course, this statement is rendered immaterial, pending your addressing of the request above.
quote:Doug M:
Lineage is lineage and determined by ancestry,
Doug, what sort of markers in a DNA specifically reflect a lineage? I mean, if you feel that you can tell this to a person who's essentially defined this multiple times on this board for years now as if it's news, surely you can answer this question.
quote:Doug M:
whereas language in determined by cultural factors which have no hard connection to genetic ancestry
Goes back to this:
How does this relate to what you are replying? Please demonstrate it, by singling out the specific statement that you've cited, which it is supposedly replying.
quote:Doug M:
versus a loose linkage, depending on population specifics.
Making no sense.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Post edited by Djehuti: Who is this 'qoucela' guy anyway? Is this our Berber fellow, Mazigh?
At first, his post seemed to be refuting the Hamitic hypothesis, then it turns out he is supporting it with his claims of Tuareg and Beja originating from ARABIA!
Rasol is correct that such claims are refuted by all 4 disciplines of linguistics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and genetics.
^Is what I meant to say.
Is this the same Dana Reynolds-Marniche who wrote various articles and books including some for Ivan Van-Sertima? I'm surprised that her of all people could be making such a claim now of Arabian originated Tuareg and Beja.
I am not surprised she makes it clear in her post that her views about Berber origins are the result of intimate interactions with these people. She has based her conclusions on first hand knowledge not just publications, like you guys.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Doug M
quote:
All populations with the same lineages do not speak the same language. Therefore whatever lineages are found in AAs do not determine their genetic lineages. Lineage is lineage and determined by ancestry, whereas language in determined by cultural factors which have no hard connection to genetic ancestry, versus a loose linkage, depending on population specifics.
This is the best point you make. It is ludicris to assume that genes can correspond to the language a population speaks. For example, hg M is found among so-called AA speakers and Niger Congo folk who are separated by thousands of miles and belong to different language families.
And what Doug wrote has to be repeated:
quote:
E-M81 is not a language.
Lineage is not a language.
Language is not a lineage.
Berber is a language.
E-M81 is not a lineage.
The two are NOT the same.
E-M81 was spread by AFRICAN PEOPLE carrying a GENE not a LANGUAGE. The fact of E-M81 in certain areas outside of Africa is a reflection of POPULATION movements, not necessarily LANGUAGE movements.
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^Is what I meant to say.
Is this the same Dana Reynolds-Marniche who wrote various articles and books including some for Ivan Van-Sertima? I'm surprised that her of all people could be making such a claim now of Arabian originated Tuareg and Beja.
I am not surprised she makes it clear in her post that her views about Berber origins are the result of intimate interactions with these people. She has based her conclusions on first hand knowledge not just publications, like you guys.
Can you single out the points on which she was questioned and objected to, and then demonstrate why they aren't valid in their specifics.
Can you also demonstrate how the specifics in counter-argument to her hypothesis of Tuareg/Tamasheq groups, based on publications, are not the findings of researchers from firsthand knowledge. I mean, how does DNA sampling of these groups, and publishing the results not be deemed firsthand knowledge? The same can be asked about study of languages of these groups, which would require having acquaintance with these groups at some point over the course of the study of their languages.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote:
Can you also demonstrate how the specifics in counter-argument to her hypothesis of Tuareg/Tamasheq groups, based on publications, are not the findings of researchers from firsthand knowledge. I mean, how does DNA sampling of these groups, and publish the results not be deemed firsthand knowledge? The same can be asked about study of languages of these groups, which would require having acquaintance with these groups at some point over the course of the study of their languages.
You can study a language without ever living among the speakers of the language, if you have the documents to relie on, e.g., Egyptian and Sumerian. First hand, primary research that results from living among the people--and the resulting observations--are more reliable.
Molecular studies can not truely represent firsthand knowledge because the population being sampled is self-selected, and represent an available sample of the people who took a genetic test, not the entire population under study. As a result, we know only about the people who were sampled and not the population generically.
You act as though geneticists can accurately date population migrations and changes this is false.
John Woodmorappe
Molecular clocks don't always tick at the steady, slow rate many evolutionists predicted. This article reports on new evidence that the divergence of molecular structure in mitochondrial DNA can occur many orders of magnitude more rapidly than was earlier supposed. This can bring the time for speciation down from millions of years to only several thousand years, which, of course, is consistent with the biblical time framework.
Evolutionists have long attempted to date the origin of taxonomic groups through the use of molecular clocks. Using two (or more) species, they determine the differences in a given stretch of their DNA molecules, and then see how long ago, according to the fossil record, those taxonomic groups diverged. The rate of divergence over time gives one a "clock" of molecular change. The problem with this approach is that the clocks are often very contradictory.
However, there was thought to have been one ideal molecular "clock" that was largely exempt from these problems. This "clock" is mitochondrial DNA (hereafter abbreviated mtDNA). Most of the cell's DNA resides in the nucleus, and serves as the cell's "government". However, the mitochondria, the organelle in the cell which serves as the cell's power station, also has some DNA (see Figure 1). Evolutionists have long believed that this mtDNA is a relic from the cell's evolutionary past, ostensibly billions of years ago. They imagine that the mitochondria was once a separate living entity, and its DNA served a governing function analogous to the cell's nuclear DNA.
There are a number of reasons why mtDNA was thought to be an ideal molecular "clock." First of all, unlike nuclear DNA, mtDNA is not divided during cell division. It simply gets duplicated through a carbon-copy like duplication when cells divide, with the duplicate going to the daughter cell. During sexual reproduction, mtDNA passes down through the mother's lineage, so there is no complicating addition of paternal mtDNA.
Finally, mtDNA was thought to receive mutations that were predominantly neutral. That is, most mutations in mtDNA would be exempt from natural selection, because those mutations would neither help the organisms out-compete other similar organisms, nor create a disadvantage for organisms in competition with others. Therefore, so it was reasoned, one only had to count the number of mutants in the mtDNA between any taxonomic groups, and one could approximate how long ago they diverged.
Not surprisingly, given standard geological dating, the figures were on the order of millions of years. A sequence- divergence rate of only 2% per million years has been quoted (MacRae and Anderson 1988, p. 485).
Now comes new evidence, however, that mtDNA is subject to natural selection. Moreover, not only does this occur within a species, but also within a relatively small, well-defined population. To top it all off, the variation also occurs in a short period of time.
Contrary to conventional evolutionary wisdom, some earlier evidence indicated that mtDNA is not subject only to neutral mutations (Fos et. al. 1990, MacRae and Anderson 1988). However, much of this evidence was ignored because it did not fit the reigning evolutionary belief in the primacy of neutral mutations (Malhotra and Thorpe 1994, p. 37).
The new field evidence indicates, however, that mtDNA is subject to natural selection. Malhotra and Thorpe (1994) studied the sequence of mtDNA among certain lizards in islands of the Caribbean Sea. They found morphological (i.e., anatomical) variation in these lizards, following moisture gradients on the islands: the animals' coloration, number of scales, and body proportions varied with local ecological conditions.
What is really surprising, however, is the fact that the mtDNA of the lizards also follows these ecological gradients! This strikes at the very heart of the prevalent belief that mtDNA is very stable, and only changes slowly through the accumulation of neutral mutations over many millions of years.
The implications of this finding are significant. Instead of accumulating mutation-by-mutation over millions of years, mutations in mtDNA can become rapidly fixed in a population. Major divergences in the mtDNA could have occurred in thousands, instead of millions of years. This is in line with the biblical time frame.
Recently an attempt was made to estimate the age of the human race using mitochondrial DNA. This material is inherited always from mother to children only. By measuring the difference in mitochondrial DNA among many individuals, the age of the common maternal ancestor of humanity was estimated at about 200,000 years. A problem is that rates of mutation are not known by direct measurement, and are often computed based on assumed evolutionary time scales. Thus all of these age estimates could be greatly in error. In fact, many different rates of mutation are quoted by different biologists.
It shouldn't be very hard explicitly to measure the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA to get a better estimate on this age. From royal lineages, for example, one could find two individuals whose most recent common maternal ancestor was, say, 1000 years ago. One could then measure the differences in the mitochondrial DNA of these individuals to bound its mutation rate. This scheme is attractive because it does not depend on radiometric dating or other assumptions about evolution or mutation rates. It is possible that in 1000 years there would be too little difference to measure. At least this would still give us some useful information.
(A project for creation scientists!)
Along this line, some work has recently been done to measure explictly the rate of substitution in mitochondrial DNA. The reference is Parsons, Thomas J., et al., A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367. The summary follows:
"The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten subsitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution." (op. cit. p. 363).
The article also contains this section: "The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years.
One biologist explained the young age estimate by assuming essentially that 19/20 of the mutations in this control region are slightly harmful and eventually will be eliminated from the population. This seems unlikely, because this region tends to vary a lot and therefore probably has little function. In addition, the selective disadvantage of these 19/20 of the mutations would have to be about 1/300 or higher in order to avoid producing more of a divergence in sequences than observed in longer than 6000 years. This means that one in 300 individuals would have to die from having mutations in this region. This seems like a high figure for a region that appears to be largely without function. It is interesting that this same biologist feels that 9/10 of the mutations to coding regions of DNA are neutral. This makes the coding regions of DNA less constrained than the apparently functionless control region of the mitochondrial DNA!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Mystery Solver
quote:
Can you also demonstrate how the specifics in counter-argument to her hypothesis of Tuareg/Tamasheq groups, based on publications, are not the findings of researchers from firsthand knowledge. I mean, how does DNA sampling of these groups, and publish the results not be deemed firsthand knowledge? The same can be asked about study of languages of these groups, which would require having acquaintance with these groups at some point over the course of the study of their languages.
You can study a language without ever living among the speakers of the language, if you have the documents to relie on, e.g., Egyptian and Sumerian.
Which would require some fieldwork, otherwise what someone is engaging in, simply referencing primary work of someone else. The same cannot be said about living languages, whereby most notable linguists actually go out to the places where these languages are spoken to learn more about their subject(s)'s language structure, and relevant elements of their culture.
I'll respond to the rest of your post later, if I deem it worth so [e.g. addressing discredited regurgitations would be a waste of my time]. Got to go for now.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:She has based her conclusions on first hand knowledge.
More - logical fallacy, Heresay, than anything else.
Someone mentioned that they spoke to a Moroccan who claimed they originated in Yeman.
I asked the following question:
Please produce any evidence you have, that Moroccans ae were aware of the -mere existence- of "Yemen", prior to Islam?
Of course there was no answer to this basic, and relevant question.
Far fetched claims such as 'Yeman origin of Berber' can only be sustained through irrational thought processes.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
It seems you were saying that "Berbers" were responsible for bringing E-M81 to Europe, which is quite INCORRECT.
Yes, that is exactly what I was conveying. What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?
quote:Doug M:
E-M81 was carried to Europe by people and whe DONT know what language they spoke.
No brainer: "Berber" speakers are people. What would you have them be otherwise?
quote:Doug M:
All E-M81 carriers did not speak Berber as far as we know.
All E-M81 may not speak "Tamazight"/"Berber", which is why it is relatively rare outside "Berber"/Tamazight speaking groups. Has that ever crossed your mind? This issue here is linguistic-genetic correlation, not to mention factoring in archeology.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Put it this way: most of the time, people migrate and carry their 'pre-existing' languages with them; they don't just cease to speak it upon arrival. In some cases, due to acculturation, motivated by the socio-political/cultural environment in which the migrants arrived, this language may or may not change.
African captives who were brought to the Americas likely came with their pre-existing languages, until over time lost it, because of pressure of the need to assimilate into the predominating socio-cultural organizations which they were confronted with, while others had decided to work with fusion of various languages/dialects of the heterogenous African migrants to be able to communicate with another, essentially giving rise to a new common language.
All populations with the same lineages do not speak the same language.
How does this relate to what you are replying? Please demonstrate it, by singling out the specific statement that you've cited, which it is supposedly replying.
quote:Doug M:
Therefore whatever lineages are found in AAs do not determine their genetic lineages.
Now of course, this statement is rendered immaterial, pending your addressing of the request above.
quote:Doug M:
Lineage is lineage and determined by ancestry,
Doug, what sort of markers in a DNA specifically reflect a lineage? I mean, if you feel that you can tell this to a person who's essentially defined this multiple times on this board for years now as if it's news, surely you can answer this question.
quote:Doug M:
whereas language in determined by cultural factors which have no hard connection to genetic ancestry
Goes back to this:
How does this relate to what you are replying? Please demonstrate it, by singling out the specific statement that you've cited, which it is supposedly replying.
quote:Doug M:
versus a loose linkage, depending on population specifics.
Making no sense.
The issue at hand concerning E-M81 and its relationship to the language Berber is that it is a relationship. E-M81 is not a Berber lineage. It is a genetic lineage that is predominant among modern Berber speakers. HOWEVER, that does not mean that the rise and origin of E-M81 corresponds to and is THE SAME AS the origin and development of the Berber language. It all depends on the time frames involved. If E-M81 is OLDER than the earliest Berber speakers then the fact it is NOW associated with Berber speakers is one thing, but making the two interchangeable historically is A TOTALLY SEPARATE ITEM. I dont disagree with many Berber speakers TODAY carrying E-M81 lineages, I just disagree with equating E-M81 as a LANGUAGE marker, because it isnt. They are not interchangeable. It may not be what you meant, but some might then infer that all ancient populations of E-M81 spoke a Berber language and that finding any historical traces of E-M81 somewhere automatically implies the presence of Berber speakers, which is totally false.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
It seems you were saying that "Berbers" were responsible for bringing E-M81 to Europe, which is quite INCORRECT.
Yes, that is exactly what I was conveying. What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?
quote:Doug M:
E-M81 was carried to Europe by people and whe DONT know what language they spoke.
No brainer: "Berber" speakers are people. What would you have them be otherwise?
quote:Doug M:
All E-M81 carriers did not speak Berber as far as we know.
All E-M81 may not speak "Tamazight"/"Berber", which is why it is relatively rare outside "Berber"/Tamazight speaking groups. Has that ever crossed your mind? This issue here is linguistic-genetic correlation, not to mention factoring in archeology.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Put it this way: most of the time, people migrate and carry their 'pre-existing' languages with them; they don't just cease to speak it upon arrival. In some cases, due to acculturation, motivated by the socio-political/cultural environment in which the migrants arrived, this language may or may not change.
African captives who were brought to the Americas likely came with their pre-existing languages, until over time lost it, because of pressure of the need to assimilate into the predominating socio-cultural organizations which they were confronted with, while others had decided to work with fusion of various languages/dialects of the heterogenous African migrants to be able to communicate with another, essentially giving rise to a new common language.
All populations with the same lineages do not speak the same language.
How does this relate to what you are replying? Please demonstrate it, by singling out the specific statement that you've cited, which it is supposedly replying.
quote:Doug M:
Therefore whatever lineages are found in AAs do not determine their genetic lineages.
Now of course, this statement is rendered immaterial, pending your addressing of the request above.
quote:Doug M:
Lineage is lineage and determined by ancestry,
Doug, what sort of markers in a DNA specifically reflect a lineage? I mean, if you feel that you can tell this to a person who's essentially defined this multiple times on this board for years now as if it's news, surely you can answer this question.
quote:Doug M:
whereas language in determined by cultural factors which have no hard connection to genetic ancestry
Goes back to this:
How does this relate to what you are replying? Please demonstrate it, by singling out the specific statement that you've cited, which it is supposedly replying.
quote:Doug M:
versus a loose linkage, depending on population specifics.
Making no sense.
^Cites the post, but apparently doesn't bother to answer the specifics, but moving along anyway, onto the non-sequiturs, Doug says...
quote: The issue at hand concerning E-M81 and its relationship to the language Berber is that it is a relationship. E-M81 is not a Berber lineage.
Why not?
quote:Doug M:
It is a genetic lineage that is predominant among modern Berber speakers.
You bet.
quote:Doug M:
HOWEVER, that does not mean that the rise and origin of E-M81 corresponds to and is THE SAME AS the origin and development of the Berber language.
In that "Berber" groups are the only groups that well, speak "Berber" languages - it is inferred that it originates among proto-Berber TMRCA, whose proto-Berber language branched into the closely related sub-berber languages, why shouldn't E-M81 reflect this? And why shouldn't the development of this language amongst the descendents of this E-M81 proto-Berber mrca not correlate to E-M81?
quote:Doug M:
It all depends on the time frames involved. If E-M81 is OLDER than the earliest Berber speakers then the fact it is NOW associated with Berber speakers is one thing, but making the two interchangeable historically is A TOTALLY SEPARATE ITEM.
They are separate in the sense that one is a DNA marker, and another is language. The DNA marker reflects its carriers, and language is correlated to this, by the fact that it is almost exclusively spoken by the said carriers. Never heard of 'correlationship' before?
quote:Doug M:
I dont disagree with many Berber speakers TODAY carrying E-M81 lineages, I just disagree with equating E-M81 as a LANGUAGE marker, because it isnt.
See above.
quote:Doug M:
They are not interchangeable.
Strawman.
quote:Doug M:
It may not be what you meant, but some might then infer that all ancient populations of E-M81 spoke a Berber language and that finding any historical traces of E-M81 somewhere automatically implies the presence of Berber speakers, which is totally false.
Put it this way: if you can find me a population which has the oldest TMRCA of E-M81 other than a "Berber" speaking population, then this would be the "ancestral" population, which carried this TMRCA, whose language would have formed the basis of the contemporary "Berber" speakers - hence, the proto-"Berber" MRCA.
E-M81 has turned out to be a characteristic marker, by way of its geo-distribution pattern and frequency.
It is overwhelmingly found in "Berber" speaking groups, and rarely found outside these groups.
The oldest E-M81 thus far found, happens to be in "Berber" speaking groups.
^To this extent, when this lineage is found in relatively smaller frequencies amongst groups within proximity of "Berber" speaking populations, and have been historically attested to having interacted with "Berber" speaking groups, why shouldn't reflect "presence of Berber speakers"?
Given that all "Berber" speaking populations carry E-M81, why shouldn't it reflect "ancient Berber speakers"?
These markers are obtained from contemporary living groups, which have the imprint of the history of their lineage virtually intact.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Mystery Solver
quote:
Can you also demonstrate how the specifics in counter-argument to her hypothesis of Tuareg/Tamasheq groups, based on publications, are not the findings of researchers from firsthand knowledge. I mean, how does DNA sampling of these groups, and publish the results not be deemed firsthand knowledge? The same can be asked about study of languages of these groups, which would require having acquaintance with these groups at some point over the course of the study of their languages.
You can study a language without ever living among the speakers of the language, if you have the documents to relie on, e.g., Egyptian and Sumerian. First hand, primary research that results from living among the people--and the resulting observations--are more reliable.
Of course, you simply picked a single point [that you felt you were comfortable with] in what you cited and answered that, and naturally it doesn't remotely address the specifics of your citation as laid out. Notwithstanding, I made I quick reply to the 'single' point you decided to address.
But you go onto say....
quote:Clyde Winters:
Molecular studies can not truely represent firsthand knowledge because the population being sampled is self-selected, and represent an available sample of the people who took a genetic test, not the entire population under study. As a result, we know only about the people who were sampled and not the population generically.
Do you normally speak just for the sake of speaking, but not making sense? In your comment, you say that actual people are being tested; so, why would the results obtained from actual testing of these people not be deemed 'firsthand' knowledge?
And of course, these would have to be volunteers; would have people 'forced' to participate in studies?
Virtually all studies based/relying on demographics are assessed in terms of statistics & probability and repeat studies, apparently because it not temporarily, spatially and financially viable to get every single person on the planet to participate, not to mention that one cannot always get everyone to participate. And so, the subjects whose data have been collected are used as being representative of a given demographic segment and section of the population under study. You need to familiarize yourself with mathematics, and its function in the business of collecting statistical data.
quote:Clyde Winters:
You act as though geneticists can accurately date population migrations and changes this is false.
How does this relate to what you are replying? Please demonstrate it by singling out the specific statement that you've cited, which it is presumably replying.
Genetics [as is the case with linguistics], doesn't deal with absolute accuracy, but certainly works with methodological approximations by way of statistics and probability, as I just said. Hence, actual facts are collected from firsthand tests and then these are interpreted in a broader-context by probability assessment, which takes us to...
quote:Clyde Winters:
John Woodmorappe
Molecular clocks don't always tick at the steady, slow rate many evolutionists predicted. This article reports on new evidence that the divergence of molecular structure in mitochondrial DNA can occur many orders of magnitude more rapidly than was earlier supposed. This can bring the time for speciation down from millions of years to only several thousand years, which, of course, is consistent with the biblical time framework.
Evolutionists have long attempted to date the origin of taxonomic groups through the use of molecular clocks. Using two (or more) species, they determine the differences in a given stretch of their DNA molecules, and then see how long ago, according to the fossil record, those taxonomic groups diverged. The rate of divergence over time gives one a "clock" of molecular change. The problem with this approach is that the clocks are often very contradictory.
However, there was thought to have been one ideal molecular "clock" that was largely exempt from these problems. This "clock" is mitochondrial DNA (hereafter abbreviated mtDNA). Most of the cell's DNA resides in the nucleus, and serves as the cell's "government". However, the mitochondria, the organelle in the cell which serves as the cell's power station, also has some DNA (see Figure 1). Evolutionists have long believed that this mtDNA is a relic from the cell's evolutionary past, ostensibly billions of years ago. They imagine that the mitochondria was once a separate living entity, and its DNA served a governing function analogous to the cell's nuclear DNA.
There are a number of reasons why mtDNA was thought to be an ideal molecular "clock." First of all, unlike nuclear DNA, mtDNA is not divided during cell division. It simply gets duplicated through a carbon-copy like duplication when cells divide, with the duplicate going to the daughter cell. During sexual reproduction, mtDNA passes down through the mother's lineage, so there is no complicating addition of paternal mtDNA.
Finally, mtDNA was thought to receive mutations that were predominantly neutral. That is, most mutations in mtDNA would be exempt from natural selection, because those mutations would neither help the organisms out-compete other similar organisms, nor create a disadvantage for organisms in competition with others. Therefore, so it was reasoned, one only had to count the number of mutants in the mtDNA between any taxonomic groups, and one could approximate how long ago they diverged.
Not surprisingly, given standard geological dating, the figures were on the order of millions of years. A sequence- divergence rate of only 2% per million years has been quoted (MacRae and Anderson 1988, p. 485).
Now comes new evidence, however, that mtDNA is subject to natural selection. Moreover, not only does this occur within a species, but also within a relatively small, well-defined population. To top it all off, the variation also occurs in a short period of time.
Contrary to conventional evolutionary wisdom, some earlier evidence indicated that mtDNA is not subject only to neutral mutations (Fos et. al. 1990, MacRae and Anderson 1988). However, much of this evidence was ignored because it did not fit the reigning evolutionary belief in the primacy of neutral mutations (Malhotra and Thorpe 1994, p. 37).
The new field evidence indicates, however, that mtDNA is subject to natural selection. Malhotra and Thorpe (1994) studied the sequence of mtDNA among certain lizards in islands of the Caribbean Sea. They found morphological (i.e., anatomical) variation in these lizards, following moisture gradients on the islands: the animals' coloration, number of scales, and body proportions varied with local ecological conditions.
What is really surprising, however, is the fact that the mtDNA of the lizards also follows these ecological gradients! This strikes at the very heart of the prevalent belief that mtDNA is very stable, and only changes slowly through the accumulation of neutral mutations over many millions of years.
The implications of this finding are significant. Instead of accumulating mutation-by-mutation over millions of years, mutations in mtDNA can become rapidly fixed in a population. Major divergences in the mtDNA could have occurred in thousands, instead of millions of years. This is in line with the biblical time frame.
Recently an attempt was made to estimate the age of the human race using mitochondrial DNA. This material is inherited always from mother to children only. By measuring the difference in mitochondrial DNA among many individuals, the age of the common maternal ancestor of humanity was estimated at about 200,000 years. A problem is that rates of mutation are not known by direct measurement, and are often computed based on assumed evolutionary time scales. Thus all of these age estimates could be greatly in error. In fact, many different rates of mutation are quoted by different biologists.
It shouldn't be very hard explicitly to measure the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA to get a better estimate on this age. From royal lineages, for example, one could find two individuals whose most recent common maternal ancestor was, say, 1000 years ago. One could then measure the differences in the mitochondrial DNA of these individuals to bound its mutation rate. This scheme is attractive because it does not depend on radiometric dating or other assumptions about evolution or mutation rates. It is possible that in 1000 years there would be too little difference to measure. At least this would still give us some useful information.
(A project for creation scientists!)
Along this line, some work has recently been done to measure explictly the rate of substitution in mitochondrial DNA. The reference is Parsons, Thomas J., et al., A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367. The summary follows:
"The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten subsitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution." (op. cit. p. 363).
The article also contains this section: "The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years.
One biologist explained the young age estimate by assuming essentially that 19/20 of the mutations in this control region are slightly harmful and eventually will be eliminated from the population. This seems unlikely, because this region tends to vary a lot and therefore probably has little function. In addition, the selective disadvantage of these 19/20 of the mutations would have to be about 1/300 or higher in order to avoid producing more of a divergence in sequences than observed in longer than 6000 years. This means that one in 300 individuals would have to die from having mutations in this region. This seems like a high figure for a region that appears to be largely without function. It is interesting that this same biologist feels that 9/10 of the mutations to coding regions of DNA are neutral. This makes the coding regions of DNA less constrained than the apparently functionless control region of the mitochondrial DNA!
^Molecular clocks are based on mutation rate patterns and intervals, which is why the seemingly neutral markers are primarily preferred for study, because of their presumably faster mutation rates and relatively less exposure to the constraint of selective pressure [naturally, which may make it relatively harder to predict the demographic timeline]. Designated UEPs amongst these mutations at designated loci, helps determine clusters and makes it useful in accessing and comparing the mutation patterns across the clusters, thereby assisting in approximating ages within generational parameters. Again, a lot of statistics is involved in this assessment, along with probability, which is why TRMCA ages are almost always presented along with citations of the confidence level in attaining those results, naturally dependent on the maximum extent to which the researchers' were able to take into consideration, the potential irregular factors in the assessment of mutation rates. Each study may well be based on limited number of subjects/sample size, where frequency of certain lineages are averaged according to the sample size, but repeat assessments of subjects from certain populations by several researchers are generally instructive in assessing 'trends' within the said populations. You keep criticizing genealogical methodology; do you have any other way which is better, genealogically speaking?
Just to take an example, from Cruciani et al., we have:
To estimate the time TMRCA of haplogroups we used the seven tetra nucleotide loci and applied the average square distance (ASD) method (Goldstein et al. 1995), where the ancestral Haplotype was assumed to be the Haplotype carrying the most frequent allele at each micro satellite locus. We employed a micro satellite evolutionarily effective mutation rate (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004). However, since the loci used here and those used by Zhivotovsky et al. (2004) do not overlap completely, we calculated the micro satellite mutation rate as follows: we obtained the mean and standard deviation of the father-to-son mutation rates reported by Gusmao et al. (2005) for the same loci here used, and reduced them by a factor 3.6 [i.e. the discrepancy between the rate estimate obtained from population data and that obtained from father-to-son transmissions (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004)]. This resulted in an evolutionarily effective rate w=7.9 x 10^-4 (SD=5.7x10^-4), a figure that was also used in recalculating the E-M215 coalescence age (data from Cruciani et al. 2004). Recently, Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman (2006), showed that reduced loss of diversity in an expanding population brings the evolutionarily effective rate closer to the germ-line rate than in constant-size populations. Thus, in the case of expanding populations, we used a correction of the 7.9 x 10^-4 value, that was calculated as follows. With reference to fig. 2 in Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman (2006), the values of accumulated variance in 200-300 generations for the scenarios of 1)a single rate for exponential population growth and 2) growth with four distinct consecutive rates, were compared with the amount accumulated in constant size populations. This resulted in evolutionarily effective mutation rates decreased of factors 2.4 and 2.8 respectively (instead of 3.6), that is 11.9 x 10^-4 (SD = 8.5 x 10^-4 and 10.2 x 10^-4 (SD = 7.3 x 10^-4), which were applied to Haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 found in Europe. C.I.s for the ASD (and TMRCA) were obtained as follows: mutations on the micro satellite genealogy were simulated using a Poisson process, in which the total number of mutational events was calculated based on branch length and assuming that mutations at each micro satellite were gamma-distributed with mean and standard deviation calculated as above. Each mutation increased or decreased allele length by one step (each with probability 0.5). ASD was then evaluated for the simulated data and the whole process repeated 1000 times, to quote the central 95% values. This method represents a refinement of that by Thomas et al. (1998) and Scozzari et al. (2001), as it also takes into account heterogeneity of mutation rates across loci. And independent dating method (rho statistics; Forster et al. 1996 et al. 1996; Saillard et al. 2000) was also used to assay how robust the time obtained is to choice of method.
Both dating procedures rely on the appropriate choice of a Haplotype to be considered ancestral, which remains an uncontrolled source of uncertainty. We observe that the rho-based ages are slightly younger than the ASD-based ones (fig. 1). The difference is significant only for the root of the entire Haplogroup, this being attributable to the relevant departure from a star-like structure because of repeated founder effects (Saillard et al. 2000). Only values obtained from ASD are quoted in the text. Haplogroup diversity and its sampling variance were estimated as in Arlequin 3 (Excoffier, LAVal and Schneider 2005). - Cruciani et al. 2007
Clyde what is wrong with what these researchers did, and how would you have it done differently and BETTER?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Put it this way: if you can find me a population which has the oldest TMRCA of E-M81 other than a "Berber" speaking population, then this would be the "ancestral" population, which carried this TMRCA, whose language would have formed the basis of the contemporary "Berber" speakers - hence, the proto-"Berber" MRCA.
Nonsense.
No language is a proto lineage and a genetic lineage is not a proto language. A lineage is not created from a language and a language can not be created from a lineage. Therefore proto-Berber refers to a LANGUAGE not a LINEAGE. Therefore Berber arose from a series of LINGUISTIC evolutions and the LINGUISTIC evolution of the Berber language does NOT simply START with E-M81 because those POPULATIONS that were RESPONSIBLE for the LINGUISTIC evolution of Berber DID NOT ALL CARRY E-M81 and depending on HOW FAR BACK you go, the LESS LIKELY it is that E-M81 was as significant than it is today. Therefore, the history of E-M81 is not a LANGUAGE history it is a GENETIC history of population movements, that is RELATED to the history of LINGUISTIC development, but the TWO are NOT the same. What I keep ARGUING against is YOUR attempts to make GENETIC lineages and evolution the SAME as LINGUISTIC evolution and evolution. They are NOT. They are related, but not the SAME.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Put it this way: if you can find me a population which has the oldest TMRCA of E-M81 other than a "Berber" speaking population, then this would be the "ancestral" population, which carried this TMRCA, whose language would have formed the basis of the contemporary "Berber" speakers - hence, the proto-"Berber" MRCA.
Nonsense.
Meaning that you don't understand the request, or you can't answer it?
quote:Doug M: No language is a proto lineage and a genetic lineage is not a proto language.
Now this is what's called real nonsense; just do this:
How does this relate to what you are replying? Please demonstrate it by singling out the specific statement that you've cited, which it is presumably replying.
quote:Doug M:
A lineage is not created from a language and a language can not be created from a lineage.
Doug, what sort of markers in a DNA specifically reflect a lineage? I mean, if you feel that you can tell this to a person who's essentially defined this multiple times on this board for years now as if it's news, surely you can answer this question.
quote:Doug M:
Therefore proto-Berber refers to a LANGUAGE not a LINEAGE. Therefore Berber arose from a series of LINGUISTIC evolutions and the LINGUISTIC evolution of the Berber language does NOT simply START with E-M81
Based on what evidence?
quote:Doug M:
because those POPULATIONS that were RESPONSIBLE for the LINGUISTIC evolution of Berber DID NOT ALL CARRY E-M81
Evidence?
quote:Doug M: and depending on HOW FAR BACK you go, the LESS LIKELY it is that E-M81 was as significant than it is today. Therefore, the history of E-M81 is not a LANGUAGE history it is a GENETIC history of population movements, that is RELATED to the history of LINGUISTIC development, but the TWO are NOT the same.
Strawman - hence immaterial. Address specifics.
quote:Doug M:
What I keep ARGUING against is YOUR attempts to make GENETIC lineages and evolution the SAME as LINGUISTIC evolution and evolution. They are NOT. They are related, but not the SAME.
Which attempts: specific citation?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Since doug cites people, only to talk about things that are totally irrelevant to the specifics of what's cited, and since he evades specific questions long the way, it's best to move away from the dead-end petty talk, and move into realm of 'making sense'...
Any able-thinking person remotely familiar with the idea of 'correlationship' will not redundantly confuse the issue of correlating the findings of linguistic distribution pattern and genetic distribution with the nonsense about either disciplines being the same thing.
Here's what is known:
1)E-M81 is a lineage characteristic of Tamazight speakers, because essentially all Tamazight speaking populations have it, with descendant populations of later expansion dates represented by the lower bound expansion ages, while populations from older expansions show a genetic time clock for upper bound expansion ages of the E-M81 expansion.
2)On the other hand E-M81, save for some presence of derivatives of North African examples in neighbouring southwestern European regions to coastal Tamazight populations, are extremely rarely, if any, are to be found outside of Africa. Oldest E-M81 lineages have been uncovered in northeast Africa, which is where Siwa Tamazight groups reside.
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
3)“Berber”/Tamazight languages aren’t spoken anywhere else, except north Africa.
It is only spoken predominantly and overwhelmingly amongst E-M81 carrying groups. The only other groups where E-M81 has been detected:
Two individuals of Beja extraction in Sudan, Afrasan speakers like “Berber” speakers, and whose language approximates Tamazight language more closely than other groups from the Cushitic branch, and naturally amongst neighboring populations to “Tamazight/Berber” groups. It isn’t exactly surprising that E-M81 will be detected in Afrasan groups in east Africa, considering this is likely where proto-Tamazight/Berber mrca first arose.
Goes back to:
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
...and demonstrated by the fact that, unlike E-M81,...
"The prescence in Portugal of both the A and E1 haplogroups may be independent from the slave trade (otherwise E3a would be well represented since it comprises the majority of West African lineages). These findings either suggest a pre-neolithic migration from North Africa or a more recent origin from a founder population of small size that did not carry haplogroup E3a, which is a major component in North African populations today. TMRCA for Portuguese E1 lineages estimated as 22.9 +/- 7.2 ky favors the first scenario..." - Goncalves et al 2005.
4)Tamazight speakers arrived in the westernmost parts of coastal North Africa by 2ky ago, hence relatively recently. E-M81 lineages in Europe are understandably very young as well, and hence don’t predate “Berber” presence in the region, precisely because there wouldn’t have been any other group to carry these markers to Europe prior to the arrival of the Berbers. To demonstrate this, we have:
The relatively young TMRCA (mutation divergence date) of 5.6 ky that we estimated for haplogroup E-M81 and the lack of differentiation between European and African haplotypes in the network of E-M81 support the hypothesis of recent gene flow between northwestern Africa and Iberia. Cruciani et al. 2002
The TMRCA of haplogroup E3b2 was estimated to be 4.2 KY (95% CI 2.86.0 KY), using the mutation rate measured in father-son pairs (Kayser et al. 2000) and assuming 30 years per generation, or 6.9 (5.98.2) KY using the deduced "effective" mutation rate calibrated by historical events (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004) Arredi et al. 2004
...and...
"Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin in East Africa (Bosch et al, 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates , **NO populations within North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paloelithic contribution.**" - Arredi et al. 2004
All in all:
*Tamazights are only native to Africa. Nowhere else is Tamazight spoken outside of Africa.
Gist: So their origins need not be sort elsewhere.
*"All" Tamazight populations carry E-M81. On the other hand, E-M81 is very rarely found outside Tamazight populations, save for [and understandably] Tamazight neighbouring populations.
Gist: Strong correpondence between E-M81 and Tamazight language expansion.
* Tamazight populations originate in the Eastern end of the continent, because that is where both the oldest E-M81 TMRCA ages and Tamazight speakers were found, and this progressively decreased as one moved northwest Africa.
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
Little else of E-M81 elsewhere, have historically been attested to have Tamazight presence. E.g. Iberian peninsula.
Gist: 1)They originate in East Africa.
2)Small frequencies of E-M81 found in southern regions of Europe are deemed to be derivatives of pre-existing coastal Northwest African examples, and hence, could not have been there prior to the arrival of Tamazight speakers, and again solified by:
NO populations within North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paloelithic contribution." - Arredi et al. 2004
3)Strong correpondence between E-M81 and Tamazight language expansion
It is about correlation of linguistic distribution pattern and genetic path pattern. It is ridiculous to assume that by doing so, one is confusing one discipline with the other.
Does this sort of correlation work with each and every population? Of course, not. It is a case by case basis, peculiar to the demographic distribution patterns of lineages and linguistic distribution pattern.
For instance, E3b lineages have strongly been correlated with spread of Afrasan superfamily, although it does occur in non-Afrasan speaking groups in relatively less frequency. The same with Niger-congo groups with E3a. The basis is assessing 'correlationship', not confusing one discipline with another. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
^^All I have said over and over is that E-M81 is a lineage and Berber is a language. ALL Berber speakers do not carry E-M81 to any large degree. Tamazigh is only ONE of the Berber language families. What about the Zenaga clans? What about the fact that many other variants of the Berber language NO LONGER are spoken? What about the lineages in THOSE populations? Berber was once more widespread in Northwestern Central and even Eastern Saharan populations prior to the arrival of Arabic. This is pointed out in studies of the expansion of Berber languages. This expansion did NOT only involve E-M81, but E-M81 was a major lineage coinciding with this distribution.
And no matter if you keep claiming that you are not mixing the two disciplines, you keep making statements to the contrary like:
quote: Small frequencies of E-M81 found in southern regions of Europe are deemed to be derivatives of pre-existing coastal Northwest African examples, and hence, could not have been there prior to the arrival of Tamazight speakers, and again solified by:
Where the presence of the lineage is equated with the presence of the language at initial theoretical time of expansion. This MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. In the last 2,000 years many different groups have been interacting along the coasts of North Africa. Romans had populations from NOrth Africa as part of their army. Does this mean that they were all speaking "Berber"? Similarly, during the muslim period, many of the populations also spoke Arabic. Therefore, expansions of E-M81 into Europe did NOT NECESSARILY reflect the expansion of BERBER speakers into Europe. The point being that the dynamics of interaction between various populations with various languages and lineages is more complex across continents than the way you imply it to be.
Also, E-M81 is not the ONLY lineage found among Berber speakers. Lineages tell researchers WHICH populations have been interacting from various areas over time. Therefore, even though E-M81 is found among Berber speakers, it is not the ONLY lineage among them and these other lineages determine the history of other population interactions over time and are just as important to the modern distributions of Berber speakers as the E-M81 lineages from east Africa. Likewise, if E-M81 becomes less present in Eastern populations, but the Berber language is assumed to have arisen among Eastern African populations, then this most likely means that some of the proto Berber speakers DID NOT carry E-M81, as opposed to the ANCESTRAL lineage of E-M81 which would have been E3b.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
^^All I have said over and over is that E-M81 is a lineage and Berber is a language.
And no matter how many more times you continue to say it, it has no relevance to any of my posts or anyone else's aside yourself.
quote:Doug M:
ALL Berber speakers do not carry E-M81 to any large degree.
Then name a single Berber population that doesn't carry it.
quote:Doug M:
Tamazigh is only ONE of the Berber language families. What about the Zenaga clans?
What about it, and the relevance of asking?
quote:Doug M:
What about the fact that many other variants of the Berber language NO LONGER are spoken?
Name them, and tell us why it helps your dead-end case, whereby you seem to be speaking to yourself, since it never addresses whatever's said.
quote:Doug M:
What about the lineages in THOSE populations?
Good question. They don't considerably carry E-M81? If so, based on what?
quote:Doug M:
Berber was once more widespread in Northwestern Central and even Eastern Saharan populations prior to the arrival of Arabic.
I had asked you questions pertaining to Tamazight presence in north Africa, which you dodged, only to come back here to make another pointless statement. Strange but true.
quote:Doug M:
This is pointed out in studies of the expansion of Berber languages. This expansion did NOT only involve E-M81
Which specific population genetics study has talked about "Berber" expansion without mentioning E-M81 in that expansion, is what you need to be thinking about. You need to start expanding the way you think about things and not simply read for the heck of it, like you do even as you "reply" me, without reading into what is actually being said.
quote:Doug M: but E-M81 was a major lineage coinciding with this distribution.
No kidding eh?
quote:Doug M:
And no matter if you keep claiming that you are not mixing the two disciplines, you keep making statements to the contrary like
Do you know what 'correlation' means? Do you know the difference between "confusing two disciplines" and "correlating two disciplines"?
quote:Doug M:
quote: Small frequencies of E-M81 found in southern regions of Europe are deemed to be derivatives of pre-existing coastal Northwest African examples, and hence, could not have been there prior to the arrival of Tamazight speakers, and again solified by:
Where the presence of the lineage is equated with the presence of the language at initial theoretical time of expansion.
I'm not sure if English is your first language, but "Tamazight speakers" refers to people. And yes, these would be "Tamazight" speakers, because it is their DNA samples that are compared with their European neighbours to assess the time expansions of the shared African lineages in question. You have no idea how population genetics works, do you?
Evidence of this, is the fact that you chose to drop the remaining post of what you are citing above, which essentially makes it clear what is being said. Why did you do such an illogical thing?
In fact, how about ever replying point by point as I've made my posts, and specify what you are supposedly disputing with actual counter evidence [instead of heresay], rather than telling us what 'you' understand from what is being said, with essay type "replies" whose point appear to be almost non-existent.
quote:Doug M:
This MAY NOT BE ACCURATE.
Vague. What specifically about the citation isn't correct, and what's the objective material to the contrary?
quote:Doug M:
In the last 2,000 years many different groups have been interacting along the coasts of North Africa. Romans had populations from NOrth Africa as part of their army. Does this mean that they were all speaking "Berber"?
Better question would be: did Romans arrive in North Africa before Tamazight speakers? If yes, then prove it.
quote:Doug M:
Similarly, during the muslim period, many of the populations also spoke Arabic. Therefore, expansions of E-M81 into Europe did NOT NECESSARILY reflect the expansion of BERBER speakers into Europe.
Which Arabic population outside of Africa, has E-M81?
Ever come across the term 'Arabization'? Ever heard of a term 'lingua franca'? Many native Africans also speak non-native languages. You should research it.
quote:Doug M:
The point being that the dynamics of interaction between various populations with various languages and lineages is more complex across continents than the way you imply it to be.
Your 'no' point has been taken, and non-sequiturs have been acknowledged.
quote:Doug M:
Also, E-M81 is not the ONLY lineage found among Berber speakers.
...which somebody said in "..." post?
quote:Doug M:
Lineages tell researchers WHICH populations have been interacting from various areas over time. Therefore, even though E-M81 is found among Berber speakers, it is not the ONLY lineage among them and these other lineages determine the history of other population interactions over time and are just as important to the modern distributions of Berber speakers as the E-M81 lineages from east Africa. Likewise, if E-M81 becomes less present in Eastern populations, but the Berber language is assumed to have arisen among Eastern African populations, then this most likely means that some of the proto Berber speakers DID NOT carry E-M81, as opposed to the ANCESTRAL lineage of E-M81 which would have been E3b.
^Does this post make sense? But let's see: Do you know that there are Tamazight speakers in northeast Africa?
Do you know that the older E-M81 lineages, as presented in my post which you never really addressed [let's be real], was found in coastal Tamazight groups of that region?
Do you know what "Proto-Berber" means? Do you know what the Proto-Berber mrca means?
Last but not least, let me know when you've addressed my last post in its entirety, which cannot be addressed without addressing the 'inter-connected' points that you never read. Otherwise, replying to your redundant non-sequiturs is a waste of my time. It tells me that you don't follow basic genetics, much less how, linguistic - a separate displine - is applied to it.
^The above also applies to any reply to the present post.
-----------------
Re: 'Molecular clock' issue in response to Clyde's post.
Edited! [Italicized in the non-italicized intro response notes following - difficult to keep of track technicalities when writing relatively longwinded synopsis]
^Molecular clocks are based on mutation rate patterns and intervals, which is why the seemingly neutral markers are primarily preferred for study, because of their presumably faster mutation rates and relatively less exposure to the constraint of selective pressure [naturally, which may make it relatively harder to predict the demographic timeline]. Designated UEPs amongst these mutations at designated loci, helps determine clusters as monophyletic units and makes it useful in accessing and comparing the mutation patterns across the clusters, thereby assisting in approximating ages within generational parameters. Again, a lot of statistics is involved in this assessment, along with probability, which is why TRMCA ages are almost always presented along with citations of the confidence level in attaining those results, naturally dependent on the maximum extent to which the researchers' were able to take into consideration, the potential irregular factors in the assessment of mutation rates. Each study may well be based on limited number of subjects/sample size, where frequency of certain lineages are averaged according to the sample size, but repeat assessments of subjects from certain populations by several researchers are generally instructive in assessing 'trends' within the said populations. You keep criticizing genealogical methodology; do you have any other way which is better, genealogically speaking?
Just to take an example, from Cruciani et al., we have:
To estimate the time TMRCA of haplogroups we used the seven tetra nucleotide loci and applied the average square distance (ASD) method (Goldstein et al. 1995), where the ancestral Haplotype was assumed to be the Haplotype carrying the most frequent allele at each micro satellite locus. We employed a micro satellite evolutionarily effective mutation rate (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004). However, since the loci used here and those used by Zhivotovsky et al. (2004) do not overlap completely, we calculated the micro satellite mutation rate as follows: we obtained the mean and standard deviation of the father-to-son mutation rates reported by Gusmao et al. (2005) for the same loci here used, and reduced them by a factor 3.6 [i.e. the discrepancy between the rate estimate obtained from population data and that obtained from father-to-son transmissions (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004)]. This resulted in an evolutionarily effective rate w=7.9 x 10^-4 (SD=5.7x10^-4), a figure that was also used in recalculating the E-M215 coalescence age (data from Cruciani et al. 2004). Recently, Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman (2006), showed that reduced loss of diversity in an expanding population brings the evolutionarily effective rate closer to the germ-line rate than in constant-size populations. Thus, in the case of expanding populations, we used a correction of the 7.9 x 10^-4 value, that was calculated as follows. With reference to fig. 2 in Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman (2006), the values of accumulated variance in 200-300 generations for the scenarios of 1)a single rate for exponential population growth and 2) growth with four distinct consecutive rates, were compared with the amount accumulated in constant size populations. This resulted in evolutionarily effective mutation rates decreased of factors 2.4 and 2.8 respectively (instead of 3.6), that is 11.9 x 10^-4 (SD = 8.5 x 10^-4 and 10.2 x 10^-4 (SD = 7.3 x 10^-4), which were applied to Haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 found in Europe. C.I.s for the ASD (and TMRCA) were obtained as follows: mutations on the micro satellite genealogy were simulated using a Poisson process, in which the total number of mutational events was calculated based on branch length and assuming that mutations at each micro satellite were gamma-distributed with mean and standard deviation calculated as above. Each mutation increased or decreased allele length by one step (each with probability 0.5). ASD was then evaluated for the simulated data and the whole process repeated 1000 times, to quote the central 95% values. This method represents a refinement of that by Thomas et al. (1998) and Scozzari et al. (2001), as it also takes into account heterogeneity of mutation rates across loci. And independent dating method (rho statistics; Forster et al. 1996 et al. 1996; Saillard et al. 2000) was also used to assay how robust the time obtained is to choice of method.
Both dating procedures rely on the appropriate choice of a Haplotype to be considered ancestral, which remains an uncontrolled source of uncertainty. We observe that the rho-based ages are slightly younger than the ASD-based ones (fig. 1). The difference is significant only for the root of the entire Haplogroup, this being attributable to the relevant departure from a star-like structure because of repeated founder effects (Saillard et al. 2000). Only values obtained from ASD are quoted in the text. Haplogroup diversity and its sampling variance were estimated as in Arlequin 3 (Excoffier, LAVal and Schneider 2005). - Cruciani et al. 2007
Clyde what is wrong with what these researchers did, and how would you have it done differently and BETTER? - ends
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I believe Doug's point is that E-M81 (E3b2) is not the only lineage found among Berber speakers. Some Tuareg clans carry M-75 (E2) which is also found among the Zenaga of Northwest Sahara in high frequencies.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
Clyde what is wrong with what these researchers did, and how would you have it done differently and BETTER? - ends
These researchers used traditional methods in their study. The problem is that they assume that the people living in the areas they research have always lived in these areas. This positivist view prevents them from recognizing that populations may have moved since ancient times.
Moreover the vast majority of establishment researchers accept Eurocentric knowledge relating to ancient societies as sacre and true. As a result, they publish research that support the status quo. Research which may be lacking in reality and validity.
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I believe Doug's point is that E-M81 (E3b2) is not the only lineage found among Berber speakers. Some Tuareg clans carry M-75 (E2) which is also found among the Zenaga of Northwest Sahara in high frequencies.
Thanks for the 'interpretation' not requested by anyone, but the question is this: What bearing does this have on what anyone [outside of Doug's non-sequiturs about confusing language with lineage] has posted here?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Clyde what is wrong with what these researchers did, and how would you have it done differently and BETTER? - ends
These researchers used traditional methods in their study. The problem is that they assume that the people living in the areas they research have always lived in these areas. This positivist view prevents them from recognizing that populations may have moved since ancient times.
Moreover the vast majority of establishment researchers accept Eurocentric knowledge relating to ancient societies as sacre and true. As a result, they publish research that support the status quo. Research which may be lacking in reality and validity.
I asked you what is wrong with the "specifics" of Cruciani et al.'s method, and you give me this - Is that all you've got?
To add to injury, you say...
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The problem is that they assume that the people living in the areas they research have always lived in these areas. This positivist view prevents them from recognizing that populations may have moved since ancient times.
Can you point out the specifics of Cruciani et al.'s study which doesn't take into account the no-brainer issue of population movements?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The problem is that they assume that the people living in the areas they research have always lived in these areas.
They do not. This is a common mistaken assumption of people who don't understand population genetics.
Moreover it's really just a form of running away from reality.
Here is what I mean -
No matter how you want to pretend that populations have moved around over the ages, you are still left with genetic lineages as undenial proof of how current populations AND THEIR ANCESTORS are related to each other.
Berber, Cushitics, Nilo Saharan, Upper Egyptians, Chadics, Bantu speakers, Yoruba, all share a common ancestry denoted by the PN2 clade [group III shown below]:
Dravidians don't have this ancestry.
So even after you finish deluding yourself with the notion that African Berber come from the "South Pole", and Dravidians come from the "Congo".... you are still left with the fact that Berber Africans are related to other Africans, and Dravidians are not.
Its quite useless to keep pretending, in abscense of any evidence, that Dravidians originated in sahara, because they are still utterly unrelated to saharans...which means their ancestors are unrelated to the ancestors of saharans.
You can run from reality but you can't hide.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
^^All I have said over and over is that E-M81 is a lineage and Berber is a language.
And no matter how many more times you continue to say it, it has no relevance to any of my posts or anyone else's aside yourself.
So what on earth are you disputing then, if it is not relevant?
quote:
quote:Doug M:
ALL Berber speakers do not carry E-M81 to any large degree.
Then name a single Berber population that doesn't carry it.
I said large degree, not none, meaning some Berber speaking groups have a lot less E-M81 relative to OTHER lineages that they carry, in terms of relative ratios of lineages WITHIN specific Berber speaking groups. That is different than the number of people within a Berber speaking group that CARRY E-M81 and even then, because you are talking about the PRESENCE of E-M81 in a specific group, there are SOME within those groups that have NO E-M81. The only way EVERY Berber speaker carried E-M81 is if 100% of every Berber speaking group had E-M81 but they dont, the percentages of people carrying E-M81 found vary across different groups, meaning INDEED that some Berber speakers carry NO E-M81. Just because it is FOUND among Berber speakers does not mean that ALL INDIVIDUAL BERBER SPEAKERS CARRY IT.
quote:
quote:Doug M:
Tamazigh is only ONE of the Berber language families. What about the Zenaga clans?
What about it, and the relevance of asking?
They do not carry as much E-M81 as a group meaning many more of them carry no E-M81 at all.
quote:
quote:Doug M:
What about the fact that many other variants of the Berber language NO LONGER are spoken?
Name them, and tell us why it helps your dead-end case, whereby you seem to be speaking to yourself, since it never addresses whatever's said.
This is mainly a reference to languages like Zenaga along with Numidian, which is classed as a Berber language.
quote:
quote:Doug M:
What about the lineages in THOSE populations?
Good question. They don't considerably carry E-M81? If so, based on what?
The Zenaga speakers dont for one. We dont know about the Numidians or Garamantes however.
quote:
quote:Doug M:
Berber was once more widespread in Northwestern Central and even Eastern Saharan populations prior to the arrival of Arabic.
I had asked you questions pertaining to Tamazight presence in north Africa, which you dodged, only to come back here to make another pointless statement. Strange but true.
You asked a question that was an roundabout way of stating your objection to the original statement: Berber is not as widespread as it used to be. But instead of refuting it, you asked questions that have nothing to do with your refutal, but instead create circular arguments that have nothing to do with your original disagreement.
quote:
quote:Doug M:
This is pointed out in studies of the expansion of Berber languages. This expansion did NOT only involve E-M81
Which specific population genetics study has talked about "Berber" expansion without mentioning E-M81 in that expansion, is what you need to be thinking about. You need to start expanding the way you think about things and not simply read for the heck of it, like you do even as you "reply" me, without reading into what is actually being said.
Which of those studies said that the expansions of Berbers ONLY involved E-M81? None of them. They ONLY mention that this lineage was significant among modern Berber speakers. No human only carries one lineage. Once again you are going in cirles, instead of getting to the point. If you disagree that early and modern Berber speakers did not carry ONLY E-M81, please feel free to back it up. Which would be nigh impossible because no human carries ONLY ONE genetic lineage.
quote:
quote:Doug M: but E-M81 was a major lineage coinciding with this distribution.
No kidding eh?
quote:Doug M:
And no matter if you keep claiming that you are not mixing the two disciplines, you keep making statements to the contrary like
Do you know what 'correlation' means? Do you know the difference between "confusing two disciplines" and "correlating two disciplines"?
Once again going around the issue and not addressing what was said and YOUR objection to it.
quote:
quote:Doug M:
quote: Small frequencies of E-M81 found in southern regions of Europe are deemed to be derivatives of pre-existing coastal Northwest African examples, and hence, could not have been there prior to the arrival of Tamazight speakers, and again solified by:
Where the presence of the lineage is equated with the presence of the language at initial theoretical time of expansion.
I'm not sure if English is your first language, but "Tamazight speakers" refers to people. And yes, these would be "Tamazight" speakers, because it is their DNA samples that are compared with their European neighbours to assess the time expansions of the shared African lineages in question. You have no idea how population genetics works, do you?
Evidence of this, is the fact that you chose to drop the remaining post of what you are citing above, which essentially makes it clear what is being said. Why did you do such an illogical thing?
In fact, how about ever replying point by point as I've made my posts, and specify what you are supposedly disputing with actual counter evidence [instead of heresay], rather than telling us what 'you' understand from what is being said, with essay type "replies" whose point appear to be almost non-existent.
Well if these expansions occurred during the Roman period, in which Northern Africa and Southern Europe shared Latin as a lingua franca, it is quite possible that those who went into Europe at the time spoke LATIN along with Berber and possibly No Berber at all. Likewise, if these expansions occurred during the Muslim period, it is also quite possible that many of these people may also have spoken Arabic. The point being that this it takes a linguistic study to determine such facts, not just a genetic study.
quote:
quote:Doug M:
This MAY NOT BE ACCURATE.
Vague. What specifically about the citation isn't correct, and what's the objective material to the contrary?
quote:Doug M:
In the last 2,000 years many different groups have been interacting along the coasts of North Africa. Romans had populations from NOrth Africa as part of their army. Does this mean that they were all speaking "Berber"?
Better question would be: did Romans arrive in North Africa before Tamazight speakers? If yes, then prove it.
Since the Berber language as well as the lineage E-M81 is proposed to have expanded at precisely about the time of Roman and Greek interation in North Africa, meaning 2,000 years ago, earlier expansions of E-M81 is quite unlikely. Therefore, the expansion of E-M81 into Europe at this time did not necessarily involve Berber at all, which is the point. Prior migrations may or may not have involved populations speaking Berber, but this requires LINGUISTIC evidence, not GENETIC evidence. An example is the fact that the Almoravids wrote in Berber and this was found through the fragments of documents left from Al-Andalus. However, for other periods we would require similar evidence to PROVE such languages came with the population. The reason being that the PEOLE of southern Europe had THEIR OWN languages and just as people mingle, so do languages, with some languages becoming a lingua franca, in other words a common tongue across multiple regions, which we DO have evidence for during the Pax Romana and Greek periods before that, as well as the Phoenician period of Carthage.
quote:
quote:Doug M:
Similarly, during the muslim period, many of the populations also spoke Arabic. Therefore, expansions of E-M81 into Europe did NOT NECESSARILY reflect the expansion of BERBER speakers into Europe.
Which Arabic population outside of Africa, has E-M81?
Ever come across the term 'Arabization'? Ever heard of a term 'lingua franca'? Many native Africans also speak non-native languages. You should research it.
You just made my point for me.
quote:
quote:Doug M:
The point being that the dynamics of interaction between various populations with various languages and lineages is more complex across continents than the way you imply it to be.
Your 'no' point has been taken, and non-sequiturs have been acknowledged.
quote:Doug M:
Also, E-M81 is not the ONLY lineage found among Berber speakers.
...which somebody said in "..." post?
quote:Doug M:
Lineages tell researchers WHICH populations have been interacting from various areas over time. Therefore, even though E-M81 is found among Berber speakers, it is not the ONLY lineage among them and these other lineages determine the history of other population interactions over time and are just as important to the modern distributions of Berber speakers as the E-M81 lineages from east Africa. Likewise, if E-M81 becomes less present in Eastern populations, but the Berber language is assumed to have arisen among Eastern African populations, then this most likely means that some of the proto Berber speakers DID NOT carry E-M81, as opposed to the ANCESTRAL lineage of E-M81 which would have been E3b.
^Does this post make sense? But let's see: Do you know that there are Tamazight speakers in northeast Africa?
Do you know that the older E-M81 lineages, as presented in my post which you never really addressed [let's be real], was found in coastal Tamazight groups of that region?
Do you know what "Proto-Berber" means? Do you know what the Proto-Berber mrca means?
Do you? Why are you asking? If you have a point to make then make it. Asking questions is not a form of rebuttal it is nothing but a waste of time.
quote: Last but not least, let me know when you've addressed my last post in its entirety, which cannot be addressed without addressing the 'inter-connected' points that you never read. Otherwise, replying to your redundant non-sequiturs is a waste of my time. It tells me that you don't follow basic genetics, much less how, linguistic - a separate displine - is applied to it.
^The above also applies to any reply to the present post.
Why not keep asking questions as a form of rebuttal and this wont keep going around in circles....
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti:
Can you point out the specifics of Cruciani et al.'s study which doesn't take into account the no-brainer issue of population movements?
Yes. This is easy. The fact that they describe the genetic background of the people in his study as the original inhabitants of these areas proves that he is a positivist.
You have pointed out in many threads that the original inhabitants of these areas were Natufians and other Saharan populations. Many of the people in this article are contemporary Europeans and Arabs.
The art of Egypt makes it clear that the "white" Berber types did not exist in North Africa until after 1200 BC. If they did not appear until this date any test of these people tell us nothing about the original Saharans and Sahelians.
The historical evidence makes it clear that they were not the original inhabitants of the areas they now occupy. This means that any matter they get from studying these populations is only relevant for understanding who lives in these areas now, but nothing about the ancient people who formerly lived in the area. The dates they provides for this or that population is pure fantasy.
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^I'll reply these posts later, Doug and Clyde.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
One aspect of the cultural diversity of NOrthern Africa is the fact that many of the Berber tradition of dance and dress remind me of the folk dance traditions and customs of Greece, Armenia, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary, especially for the women. To me this seems to be due to the fact of many European women being brought to Northern Africa by the Moors and the Turkish Ottomans. The countries I listed are all part of the former Ottoman empire and these traditions spread due to Ottoman influence in many places including Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You have pointed out in many threads that the original inhabitants of these areas were Natufians and other Saharan populations.
^ On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster E3b1 delta was involved in a first dispersal or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky). A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster into Europe. - Cruciani.
^ If you understood genetics, and were less of and ideologue and more of a student you would perceive that this reality of Neolithic African migrations into Eurasia [aka Natufian] is *exactly* what Cruciani is denoting via genetics.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: The art of Egypt makes it clear that the "white" Berber types did not exist in North Africa until after 1200 BC. If they did not appear until this date any test of these people tell us nothing about the original Saharans and Sahelians.
^ Nonsense. If you were less of a racialist and more of a scholar you would realise that skin color, is distinct from both language and lineage, and not as you are *stuck on believing* - a static qualifier of *race*.
"This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa 2 ky. The CONSIDERABLY OLDER linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario." - Luis
The majority of the maternal ancestors of the [Maghrebi] Berbers must have come from Europe and the Near East since the Neolithic.” - Rando
^ Translation:
Berber speaking people originate in East Africa in the Neolithic, when Berber language breaks off from related Afrisan languages.
Berber migrate from East Africa to the Maghreb.
Maghreb Berber have predominently European maternal ancestry introduced within the last 2 thousand years, into the Maghreb population, and this is why many Maghreb Berber resemble Southern Europeans in skin color, while speaking and African language.
This situation is *not* unprecendented, and similar examples have been denoted in population genetics - Brazillians have mostly African and Native American *female* lineages, but they speak a European language. Black and Native Brazilians thus speak a language that originated with white Europeans. And even *white* Brazilians have primarily Black and Native mtdna lineages:
our mtDNA data in *white* Brazilians, showed that 60% of the matrilineages were Amerindian or African. - Pena
White Berber speak a language that originated with Black Africans.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
^^All I have said over and over is that E-M81 is a lineage and Berber is a language.
And no matter how many more times you continue to say it, it has no relevance to any of my posts or anyone else's aside yourself.
So what on earth are you disputing then, if it is not relevant?
I'm not disputing anything - use your head. You replied me, presumably 'disputing' something, which as it turns out, is nothing but a non-sequitur about 'confusing language with lineage'. I'm challenging you to prove its relevance to my post, and you've failed - that's that.
quote:Doug M:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
ALL Berber speakers do not carry E-M81 to any large degree.
Then name a single Berber population that doesn't carry it.
I said large degree, not none, meaning some Berber speaking groups have a lot less E-M81 relative to OTHER lineages that they carry, in terms of relative ratios of lineages WITHIN specific Berber speaking groups.
In which case, again, your post is irrelevant to my post, with respect to which you made it seem as though you were addressing, when in fact you weren't.
quote:Doug M:
That is different than the number of people within a Berber speaking group that CARRY E-M81 and even then, because you are talking about the PRESENCE of E-M81 in a specific group, there are SOME within those groups that have NO E-M81.
Immaterial - I posted actual studies, in response to which you started babbling about "Berber being a language and E-M81 being a lineage", instead of addressing. And yes, I did say that E-M81 has come to characterize "Berber" expansions, and you haven't refuted it - the aforementioned non-sequitur aside.
quote:Doug M:
The only way EVERY Berber speaker carried E-M81 is if 100% of every Berber speaking group had E-M81 but they dont,
Non-sequitur, illogical and evasion of the actual on-point issue.
quote:Doug M:
the percentages of people carrying E-M81 found vary across different groups, meaning INDEED that some Berber speakers carry NO E-M81. Just because it is FOUND among Berber speakers does not mean that ALL INDIVIDUAL BERBER SPEAKERS CARRY IT.
Immaterial & non-sequitur.
quote:Doug M:
quote: Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
Tamazigh is only ONE of the Berber language families. What about the Zenaga clans?
What about it, and the relevance of asking?
They do not carry as much E-M81 as a group meaning many more of them carry no E-M81 at all.
Name a single Tamazight/Berber speaking group which doesn't carry E-M81; otherwise, this is just another non-issue babbling.
quote:Doug M:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
What about the fact that many other variants of the Berber language NO LONGER are spoken?
Name them, and tell us why it helps your dead-end case, whereby you seem to be speaking to yourself, since it never addresses whatever's said.
This is mainly a reference to languages like Zenaga along with Numidian, which is classed as a Berber language.
Who said "Zenaga" was ever a language, much less "Numidian", as opposed to appellation of certain groups. What is your source for this questionable claim. And how does this help you with the fact that you cited me, but didn't actually address what was cited?
quote:Doug M:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
What about the lineages in THOSE populations?
Good question. They don't considerably carry E-M81? If so, based on what?
The Zenaga speakers dont for one.
If they are "Berbers", then according to what genetic study done on them, do they not have the characteristic "Berber" lineage of E-M81?
quote:Doug M:
We dont know about the Numidians or Garamantes however.
In which case, you had no point in bringing them up in the first place.
quote:Doug M:
quote: Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
Berber was once more widespread in Northwestern Central and even Eastern Saharan populations prior to the arrival of Arabic.
I had asked you questions pertaining to Tamazight presence in north Africa, which you dodged, only to come back here to make another pointless statement. Strange but true.
You asked a question that was an roundabout way of stating your objection to the original statement: Berber is not as widespread as it used to be. But instead of refuting it, you asked questions that have nothing to do with your refutal, but instead create circular arguments that have nothing to do with your original disagreement.
First - the above is false & a non-issue. I was referring to questions pertaining to your questionable claim about "coastal North Africans" being "not indigenous".
Second - that statment you just wrote [highlighted] lacks context, specificity, and fails to address what you cited me on. Simply put, it is unworthy of attention, unless you can establish its relevance to my post [as you cited] that started these round of exchanges.
quote:Doug M:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
This is pointed out in studies of the expansion of Berber languages. This expansion did NOT only involve E-M81
Which specific population genetics study has talked about "Berber" expansion without mentioning E-M81 in that expansion, is what you need to be thinking about. You need to start expanding the way you think about things and not simply read for the heck of it, like you do even as you "reply" me, without reading into what is actually being said.
Which of those studies said that the expansions of Berbers ONLY involved E-M81? None of them.
Non-sequitur & irrelevant.
quote:Doug M:
They ONLY mention that this lineage was significant among modern Berber speakers. No human only carries one lineage. Once again you are going in cirles, instead of getting to the point. If you disagree that early and modern Berber speakers did not carry ONLY E-M81, please feel free to back it up. Which would be nigh impossible because no human carries ONLY ONE genetic lineage.
Immaterial.
quote:Doug M:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
And no matter if you keep claiming that you are not mixing the two disciplines, you keep making statements to the contrary like
Do you know what 'correlation' means? Do you know the difference between "confusing two disciplines" and "correlating two disciplines"?
Once again going around the issue and not addressing what was said and YOUR objection to it.
You actually guilty of the above. Remember it was you who initiatly cited me babbling about "language not being lineage', while not actually addressing what was cited [can't be overemphasized]. That's what this whole thing is about. I said that E-M81 is indicative of "Berber" expansions, which is generally acknowledged in academia - you have yet to dispute/refute it, outside of the aforementioned babble, presumably of "confusing language with lineage". Apparently the concept of 'correlation' is something new to you.
quote: Doug M:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
quote:Mystery Solver:
Small frequencies of E-M81 found in southern regions of Europe are deemed to be derivatives of pre-existing coastal Northwest African examples, and hence, could not have been there prior to the arrival of Tamazight speakers, and again solified by:
Where the presence of the lineage is equated with the presence of the language at initial theoretical time of expansion.
I'm not sure if English is your first language, but "Tamazight speakers" refers to people. And yes, these would be "Tamazight" speakers, because it is their DNA samples that are compared with their European neighbours to assess the time expansions of the shared African lineages in question. You have no idea how population genetics works, do you?
Evidence of this, is the fact that you chose to drop the remaining post of what you are citing above, which essentially makes it clear what is being said. Why did you do such an illogical thing?
In fact, how about ever replying point by point as I've made my posts, and specify what you are supposedly disputing with actual counter evidence [instead of heresay], rather than telling us what 'you' understand from what is being said, with essay type "replies" whose point appear to be almost non-existent.
Well if these expansions occurred during the Roman period,
According to what study?
quote:Doug M:
in which Northern Africa and Southern Europe shared Latin as a lingua franca, it is quite possible that those who went into Europe at the time spoke LATIN along with Berber and possibly No Berber at all.
Immaterial - pending substantiation of the above.
quote:Doug M:
Likewise, if these expansions occurred during the Muslim period, it is also quite possible that many of these people may also have spoken Arabic. The point being that this it takes a linguistic study to determine such facts, not just a genetic study.
It takes both linguistics and genetics, including archaeology if available, to get a broad picture of movement of people. Apparently, the concept of 'multidisciplinary approach' has yet to reach your neck of the woods.
quote:Doug M:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
In the last 2,000 years many different groups have been interacting along the coasts of North Africa. Romans had populations from NOrth Africa as part of their army. Does this mean that they were all speaking "Berber"?
Better question would be: did Romans arrive in North Africa before Tamazight speakers? If yes, then prove it.
Since the Berber language as well as the lineage E-M81 is proposed to have expanded at precisely about the time of Roman and Greek interation in North Africa, meaning 2,000 years ago, earlier expansions of E-M81 is quite unlikely.
This is what I'm talking about: the need to understand genetics. The study in question [Luis et al.] was referring to an expansion in the westernmost coastal northwest Africa by ca. 2ky ago. It isn't saying that "Tamazight" speakers in northeast Africa, including in the Libyan region, had ocurred ca. 2ky ago; rather, genetic indicators point to Tamazight/'Berber' expansion/presence in Northeast Africa ca. 8 ky ago, and perhaps between 6-8 ky ago across the Saharan expanse.
quote:Doug M:
Therefore, the expansion of E-M81 into Europe at this time did not necessarily involve Berber at all, which is the point.
Pointless - see above.
quote:Doug M:
Prior migrations may or may not have involved populations speaking Berber, but this requires LINGUISTIC evidence, not GENETIC evidence.
How do expect to get an idea of human expansion without the one thing that indicates so - DNA? DNA are markers of the people themselves, and hence the path of their movement. This is probably the first time you are hearing about the 'multidisciplinary' concept.
quote:Doug M:
An example is the fact that the Almoravids wrote in Berber and this was found through the fragments of documents left from Al-Andalus. However, for other periods we would require similar evidence to PROVE such languages came with the population. The reason being that the PEOLE of southern Europe had THEIR OWN languages and just as people mingle, so do languages, with some languages becoming a lingua franca, in other words a common tongue across multiple regions, which we DO have evidence for during the Pax Romana and Greek periods before that, as well as the Phoenician period of Carthage.
Immaterial.
quote:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
Similarly, during the muslim period, many of the populations also spoke Arabic. Therefore, expansions of E-M81 into Europe did NOT NECESSARILY reflect the expansion of BERBER speakers into Europe.
Which Arabic population outside of Africa, has E-M81?
Ever come across the term 'Arabization'? Ever heard of a term 'lingua franca'? Many native Africans also speak non-native languages. You should research it.
You just made my point for me.
How? You are talking about E-M81 reflecting "Arab" migration, but NOT a reflection "Tamazight" groups - your claim is illogical, pending substantiation.
quote:Doug M:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Doug M:
Lineages tell researchers WHICH populations have been interacting from various areas over time. Therefore, even though E-M81 is found among Berber speakers, it is not the ONLY lineage among them and these other lineages determine the history of other population interactions over time and are just as important to the modern distributions of Berber speakers as the E-M81 lineages from east Africa. Likewise, if E-M81 becomes less present in Eastern populations, but the Berber language is assumed to have arisen among Eastern African populations, then this most likely means that some of the proto Berber speakers DID NOT carry E-M81, as opposed to the ANCESTRAL lineage of E-M81 which would have been E3b.
^Does this post make sense? But let's see: Do you know that there are Tamazight speakers in northeast Africa?
Do you know that the older E-M81 lineages, as presented in my post which you never really addressed [let's be real], was found in coastal Tamazight groups of that region?
Do you know what "Proto-Berber" means? Do you know what the Proto-Berber mrca means?
Do you? Why are you asking?
Yes, but apparently you don't - you would have answered with explanation to a straighforward question, not with an irrelevant question.
quote:Doug M: If you have a point to make then make it. Asking questions is not a form of rebuttal it is nothing but a waste of time.
Yes: the point, you have no clue what proto-Berber means language-wise or genetic-wise. There you have it.
quote:Doug M:
quote:Mystery Solver:
Last but not least, let me know when you've addressed my last post in its entirety, which cannot be addressed without addressing the 'inter-connected' points that you never read. Otherwise, replying to your redundant non-sequiturs is a waste of my time. It tells me that you don't follow basic genetics, much less how, linguistic - a separate displine - is applied to it.
^The above also applies to any reply to the present post.
Why not keep asking questions as a form of rebuttal and this wont keep going around in circles...
There is nothing to rebut from my end; re: you are the one who cited me - doing so, when you couldn't even establish the relevance of citing me in the first place; rather, you keep babbling about "lineage not being language'. Even so, I set up a 'correlation'/comparative analysis between the characteristic "Berber"/Tamazight lineage of E-M81 and the "Tamazight"/"Berber" language - which would have needed to be dealt with in its entirety in any critique, but you predictably dodged the whole thing.
The gist of your post again: purely evasive incoherent noise.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Can you point out the specifics of Cruciani et al.'s study which doesn't take into account the no-brainer issue of population movements?
Yes. This is easy. The fact that they describe the genetic background of the people in his study as the original inhabitants of these areas proves that he is a positivist.
Citation - context?
quote: Clyde Winters:
You have pointed out in many threads that the original inhabitants of these areas were Natufians and other Saharan populations. Many of the people in this article are contemporary Europeans and Arabs.
Relevance to Cruciani et al's 'not taking into account population movement'.
quote:Clyde Winters:
The art of Egypt makes it clear that the "white" Berber types did not exist in North Africa until after 1200 BC. If they did not appear until this date any test of these people tell us nothing about the original Saharans and Sahelians.
Test of E-M81 marker [a characteristic Tamazight expansion marker] in Tamazight speakers point to an expansion of about 8 ky ago northward, and the lesser tmrca expansion ages show a pattern of expansion moving westward. Linguistic reconstruction points to an East African origin. What relevance has being 'white' to do with this?
quote:Clyde Winters:
The historical evidence makes it clear that they were not the original inhabitants of the areas they now occupy.
Apparently they were preceded by other populations in the region, as late Pleistocene crania attest to. That's beside the point. The point is that they are 'indigenous' and have an upward date expansion of ca. 8 ky ago westward and northward.
quote:Clyde Winters:
This means that any matter they get from studying these populations is only relevant for understanding who lives in these areas now, but nothing about the ancient people who formerly lived in the area. The dates they provides for this or that population is pure fantasy.
This is a joke: you provide no specific Cruciani et al. piece, and you don't show how they don't take 'population movements' into account, but go onto rant about "white Berbers". You have no case.
Ps - noticed how you've not answered the question regarding what was "specifically" wrong in Cruciani et al.'s dating methods, and the need to lay it out into specifics.
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
Racist remarks from a Geneticist and some people expects any intelligent person to take this pseudo-science seriously.
quote:The prescence in Portugal of both the A and E1 haplogroups may be independent from the slave trade (otherwise E3a would be well represented since it comprises the majority of West African lineages ). These findings either suggest a pre-neolithic migration from North Africa or a more recent origin from a founder population of small size that did not carry haplogroup E3a, which is a major component in North African populations today. TMRCA for Portuguese E1 lineages estimated as 22.9 +/- 7.2 ky favors the first scenario..." - Goncalves et al 2005
Did it ever occur to that idiot that E3a might not have been in West Afrika before haplotype A and E1 carriers?
Goncalves has made it quite clear that E3a is the slave gene in case you didn't recognize, now which intelligent person would want to accept any information from such a obviously biased and racist FOOL.
Genetics is currently being rendered a pseudo-science only fit for fools. Trying to rewrite history with Genetic guesses and racist ideologies is doomed for failure.
Hotep
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Greetings:
Racist remarks from a Geneticist and some people expects any intelligent person to take this pseudo-science seriously.
quote:The prescence in Portugal of both the A and E1 haplogroups may be independent from the slave trade (otherwise E3a would be well represented since it comprises the majority of West African lineages ). These findings either suggest a pre-neolithic migration from North Africa or a more recent origin from a founder population of small size that did not carry haplogroup E3a, which is a major component in North African populations today. TMRCA for Portuguese E1 lineages estimated as 22.9 +/- 7.2 ky favors the first scenario..." - Goncalves et al 2005
Did it ever occur to that idiot that E3a might not have been in West Afrika before haplotype A and E1 carriers?
Yes, it had occurred to them: simple reading & understanding would have made this clear:
for Portuguese E1 lineages estimated as 22.9 +/- 7.2 ky favors the first scenario..." - Goncalves et al.
The question - was whether the lineages as present in the said contemporary Portuguese samples reflects a more recent introduction via historic interactions in Africa, or a much older one.
The answer - no E3a, and prehistoric tmrca "favors the first scenario..."
quote:Hotep2U:
Goncalves has made it quite clear that E3a is the slave gene in case you didn't recognize
No, I didn't recognize that. Where - citation?
quote:Hotep2U:
now which intelligent person would want to accept any information from such a obviously biased and racist FOOL.
Genetics is currently being rendered a pseudo-science only fit for fools. Trying to rewrite history with Genetic guesses and racist ideologies is doomed for failure.
Hotep
Why then do you cite material on DNA haplotypes or haplogroups [and usually from relatively more questionable sources like Wikipedia] when it suits the ideological occasion, when you deem it 'fit for fools'?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ lol. Even though he clearly doesn't understand what he is citing, and he is trying to cover for that by 'attacking' science, he is at least being forced by virtue of his method, to read and however painfully, learn *something* about genetics. Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
^^^^ Greetings:
Groups who carry E3a could have also migrated to Portugal freely also. I can show passages where Afrikans from Mali went to Spain and Portugal one can assume such migrants might have carried the E3a gene, though based off the authors comments such a idea is inconceivable to carriers of E3a.
quote: The prescence in Portugal of both the A and E1 haplogroups may be independent from the slave trade (otherwise E3a would be well represented since it comprises the majority of West African lineages ).
The author renders two consequences for the presence of haplotype A and E1 in Portugal, Neolithic migrants or Forced laborers, this implies Afrikans lack the ability to invade European homelands I assume.
The author is a racist, if the author had been intelligent the author would have wrote that Haplotype A and E1 being in Portugal could be evidence of a Forced Labor (Slave Trade) scenario also that did not include E3a carriers, the author made it clear that the absence of E3a signifies no Forced Labor (Slave Trade) this implies that E3a signals Forced Labor (Slave Trade). The author rules out the Moorish invasion of Spain and Portugal.
quote: Why then do you cite material on DNA haplotypes or haplogroups [and usually from relatively more questionable sources like Wikipedia] when it suits the ideological occasion, when you deem it 'fit for fools'
Because sometimes a individual has to reluctantly stoop to the level of fools to show a fool how foolish they are.
Hotep
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Greetings:
Groups who carry E3a could have also migrated to Portugal freely also. I can show passages where Afrikans from Mali went to Spain and Portugal one can assume such migrants might have carried the E3a gene, though based off the authors comments such a idea is inconceivable to carriers of E3a.
Again read the extract: The point was absense of E3a. So what you are talking about, is irrelevant to the author's goals or point.
quote:Hotep2u:
The author renders two consequences for the presence of haplotype A and E1 in Portugal, Neolithic migrants or Forced laborers, this implies Afrikans lack the ability to invade European homelands I assume.
Portuguese involvement in "slave trade" in west Africa, is a reality, and hence:
The prescence in Portugal of both the A and E1 haplogroups may be independent from the slave trade (otherwise E3a would be well represented since it comprises the majority of West African lineages ).
Their conclusion about Hg A and E1 communicates precisely that - that it would have been voluntary movement in the upper Paleolithic. So, again:
TMRCA for Portuguese E1 lineages estimated as 22.9 +/- 7.2 ky favors the first scenario..." - Goncalves et al 2005
Sure, they could have investigated the question of whether E3a presence reflects intrusion during the participation in the Slave trade by the Portuguese or some other demographic events: but again, no E3a presence.
E3a is predominant in contemporary West Africans - was emphasized; so migrations involving west Africans in recent time or at any point when E3a carriers had a significant presence in west Africa, would likely involve meaningful transfer of this lineage as well.
quote:Hotep2u:
The author is a racist, if the author had been intelligent the author would have wrote that Haplotype A and E1 being in Portugal could be evidence of a Forced Labor (Slave Trade) scenario also that did not include E3a carriers
Why? Given the tmrca age, and relative absence of E3a, which is prevalent in virtually all destinations where slaves from West Africa ended up? If it were more recent as the Slave trade, the likelihood of E3a showing up in meaningful frequency presenting itself, would have been high - the point made by the authors.
quote:Hotep2u:
the author made it clear that the absence of E3a signifies no Forced Labor (Slave Trade) this implies that E3a signals Forced Labor (Slave Trade). The author rules out the Moorish invasion of Spain and Portugal.
...because Moorish invasion is historic, and could just as well have involved E3a lineages as well, whereas the tmrca age and absense of E3a doesn't reflect this.
quote:Hotep2u:
quote: Why then do you cite material on DNA haplotypes or haplogroups [and usually from relatively more questionable sources like Wikipedia] when it suits the ideological occasion, when you deem it 'fit for fools'
Because sometimes a individual has to reluctantly stoop to the level of fools to show a fool how foolish they are.
Hotep
Well, if you don't have faith in what you are using to 'stoop to the level of fools', why are using the said material to 'refute' them or 'reinforce' your ideology, as it pertains to genetic evidence? Makes no sense.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The author renders two consequences for the presence of haplotype A and E1 in Portugal, Neolithic migrants or Forced laborers, this implies Afrikans lack the ability to invade European homelands I assume.
^ Too much political venting, not enough genetics. It's a mistake to think you can substitute the former for the later.
"You can't fake the funk". - James Brown.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:There conclusion about Hg A and E1 communates precisely that - that it would have been voluntary movement in the upper Paleolithic. So, again:
TMRCA for Portuguese E1 lineages estimated as 22.9 +/- 7.2 ky favors the first scenario..." - Goncalves et al 2005
Gives the lie to the Winters mantra that genetics cannot inform of ancient population movements.
Of course it can.
Genetics does require abstract logics at a relatively high level, but it is not as difficult as Hotep2U wants to make it, in order to avoid doing the homework required to understand it.
Hey Wally....that goes for you too. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You have pointed out in many threads that the original inhabitants of these areas were Natufians and other Saharan populations.
^ On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster E3b1 delta was involved in a first dispersal or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky). A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster into Europe. - Cruciani.
^ If you understood genetics, and were less of and ideologue and more of a student you would perceive that this reality of Neolithic African migrations into Eurasia [aka Natufian] is *exactly* what Cruciani is denoting via genetics.
If this is true how did the Natufians turn white in Eurasia?
What does genetics say about the time it takes to turn from Black to white?
The Eskimos live in the Artic and they remain dark skinned. Why have these Eskimos remained dark skinned?
Whites have been in South Africa for 400 years.
Why have these whites remained white? They remain white because they were originally white.
The people discussed in this article have nothing at all to do with the original Blacks who lived in the area unless you can explain where white people came from and when and how these Blacks became whites.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Supercar/Mystery Solver
quote:
Who said "Zenaga" was ever a language, much less "Numidian", as opposed to appellation of certain groups. What is your source for this questionable claim. And how does this help you with the fact that you cited me, but didn't actually address what was cited?
You don't know what you'r talking about as usual. There is a language called Numidian language. See below:
The Numidian Language Language Name: Numidian Alternate Name(s): Ancient Berber Lybico-Berber Once Spoken in: Algeria Morocco Language Code: nxm (Former code: XNUM) Status: Extinct Family: Afroasiatic Subgroup: Berber Subgrouping Code: AFA Brief Description: An ancient language of Northwest Africa. c. 200 BC.
Find more information on Numidian Retrieve: Everything on Numidian in LINGUIST Database View: Listing of Numidian documents in Odin Database Search in: Google Database Rosetta Database Page Updated: 06-Jun-2007
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote:
Virtually all studies based/relying on demographics are assessed in terms of statistics & probability and repeat studies, apparently because it not temporarily, spatially and financially viable to get every single person on the planet to participate, not to mention that one cannot always get everyone to participate. And so, the subjects whose data have been collected are used as being representative of a given demographic segment and section of the population under study. You need to familiarize yourself with mathematics, and its function in the business of collecting statistical data.
This is false. Genetic studies are based on an available sample, which naturally going to be self-selected by the people who chose , or have taken a test. Please cite at least one article where the researchers used a systematic, random or stratified sample. I have read many pepers to date and not found any.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote:
Genetics [as is the case with linguistics], doesn't deal with absolute accuracy, but certainly works with methodological approximations by way of statistics and probability, as I just said. Hence, actual facts are collected from firsthand tests and then these are interpreted in a broader-context by probability assessment, which takes us to...
If they do not deal with "absolute accuracy" the authors of these articles are making good guesses. Nothing they write can be assumed to be factual or proof,
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote:
Clyde what is wrong with what these researchers did, and how would you have it done differently and BETTER?
You answered the question yourself.
Mystery Solver
quote:
Both dating procedures rely on the appropriate choice of a Haplotype to be considered ancestral, which remains an uncontrolled source of uncertainty.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote:
Apparently they were preceded by other populations in the region, as late Pleistocene crania attest to. That's beside the point. The point is that they are 'indigenous' and have an upward date expansion of ca. 8 ky ago westward and northward.
Cite the article discussing osteological evidence of modern Europeans 8ky ago.
quote: Such a recent common ancestry of maternal lineages found in populations living as far as 9,000 miles apart and whose anthropological affinities are not at all obvious is, to say the least, unexpected. Can we provide a reasonable explanation? The recent molecular dissection of other mtDNA haplogroups reveals some clues. H1 and H3, two frequent subhaplogroups of H, display frequency peaks centered in Iberia and surrounding populations, including the Berbers of Morocco, and coalescence ages of ∼11 ky (Achilli et al. 2004). Furthermore, their frequency patterns and ages resemble those reported for haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 2001a)—which, similar to U5b1b, is extremely common only in the Saami (together, U5b1b and V encompass almost 90% of the Saami mtDNAs) (Torroni et al. 1996; Tambets et al. 2004). Thus, although these previous studies have highlighted the role of the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area as a major source of the hunter-gatherer populations that gradually repopulated much of central and northern Europe when climatic conditions began to improve ∼15 ky ago, the identification of U5b1b now unequivocally links the maternal gene pool of the ancestral Berbers to the same refuge area and indicates that European hunter-gatherers also moved toward the south and, by crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, contributed their U5b1b, H1, H3, and V mtDNAs to modern North Africans.
A side note on the pictures of Balkan folk costumes. It seems that these styles and patterns of dress, costume and dress became widespread in meditterranean due to the Ottoman Empire, of which Africa was a part. During this period the arts and crafts flourished and the Ottomans became well known for them. It is from this time that many traditions from many regions within the empire began to spread due to trade. Venice, in Italy, supposedly recieved the art of glassmaking from trade with Ottoman and Muslim traders, much of which came from Egypt, which was home to early tile and glassmaking using fiance. The Venetians went on to become world famous for their glassmaking. Likewise, the fashions of textile making and weaving that seem common to North African, Baltic and Levantine states seems to also have spread during this time, even though there were specific customs and traditions that predated the Ottomans in many parts of the Empire. No doubt as well, it was during the Ottoman period that the Barbary states developed into notorious slave radiers in Southern Europe, bringing European as slaves into Northern Africa. It is also well known that Baltic women were traded throughout the Ottoman empire as well.
quote: Morocco's cultural traditions, although deeply rooted in Islamic and Berber customs, have been enriched over the centuries by other cultures, particularly Jewish, African and Mediterranean. For hundreds of years, Moroccan women have composed fine embroideries and rugs using intricate designs that have been passed down through generations. Embroidery--chiefly an art of Morocco's cities--developed gradually over several centuries as a consequence of foreign settlement, interaction and trade, and these textiles are among the highest artistic achievements of the region.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: One aspect of the cultural diversity of NOrthern Africa is the fact that many of the Berber tradition of dance and dress remind me of the folk dance traditions and customs of Greece, Armenia, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary, especially for the women. To me this seems to be due to the fact of many European women being brought to Northern Africa by the Moors and the Turkish Ottomans. The countries I listed are all part of the former Ottoman empire and these traditions spread due to Ottoman influence in many places including Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You have pointed out in many threads that the original inhabitants of these areas were Natufians and other Saharan populations.
^ On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster E3b1 delta was involved in a first dispersal or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky). A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster into Europe. - Cruciani.
^ If you understood genetics, and were less of and ideologue and more of a student you would perceive that this reality of Neolithic African migrations into Eurasia [aka Natufian] is *exactly* what Cruciani is denoting via genetics. [/QUOTE]
quote:If this is true how did the Natufians turn white in Eurasia?
Who said anything about Natufians turning white?
If you asking why modern Europeans are white, according to CL Brace 2005:
The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants..
It is a further surprise that the pipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.
The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the *in situ residents* of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it. - Brace 2005.
Please ask questions for any part of this that is not clear. thx.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:What does genetics say about the time it takes to turn from Black to white?
Europeans turned white in the Mesolithic, based upon genetics. Europeans have derived allelle mutations on their melanocortin receptor that impedes melanin production.
The genes that cause them to be white, can be identified and dated. Thus skin color, which is caused by genes, can be assessed via genetics.
At least two groups of people, Africans, and Melanesians have the original underived skin color genes, that all others are derived from.
Genetics has proven that all people were originall black, that Europeans turned white, recently and only after settling Europe, and that dipigmentation, is a gradual process that has occurred independantly and relatively in several populations, thus the lighter skin tones of NorthEast Asia, are not indicative of mixture with whites, nor are the lighter skin tones of native African Khoisan, indicative of any kind of non African *mixture*.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:What does genetics say about the time it takes to turn from Black to white?
Europeans turned white in the Mesolithic, based upon genetics. Europeans have derived allelle mutations on their melanocortin receptor that impedes melanin production.
The genes that cause them to be white, can be identified and dated. Thus skin color, which is caused by genes, can be assessed via genetics.
At least two groups of people, Africans, and Melanesians have the original underived skin color genes, that all others are derived from.
Genetics has proven that all people were originall black, that Europeans turned white, recently and only after settling Europe, and that dipigmentation, is a gradual process that has occurred independantly and relatively in several populations, thus the lighter skin tones of NorthEast Asia, are not indicative of mixture with whites, nor are the lighter skin tones of native African Khoisan, indicative of any kind of non African *mixture*.
If the Europeans turned white during the Mesolithic where is evidence of modern European skeletons associated with this population found dating to this period? I don't want any more of your opinions, please cite a source.
REPORTS Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites, Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1016 - 1018.
By: Wolfgang Haak,1* Peter Forster,2 Barbara Bramanti,1 Shuichi Matsumura,2 Guido Brandt,1 Marc Tänzer,1 Richard Villems,3 Colin Renfrew,2 Detlef Gronenborn,4 Kurt Werner Alt,1 Joachim Burger1 The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers.
We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages."
The DNA found in the ancient Europeans was N1(a).
It seems to me that we may be asking the wrong question. Instead of trying to explain why the Old Europeans were not Indo-European speakers, or contemporary Europeans, we should be asking the question who these Old Europeans were. It appears to me that they may have been Africans.
Moreover, if the Europeans turned white in Europe--when did they arrive in Europe?
There were no whites in Neolithic Europe Brace observed that :" The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested "( C. L. Brace et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 242. (2006). )
Moreover, whereas the Cro-Magnon and agricultural folk both possessed N hg, they could not have been white, since the white Europeans belong to the R1 group. It is clear that the existence of R1 as the identifying gene of West Eurasians illustrates discontinuity between the ancient and modern European populations.
Granted, Brace did make the claim: " The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it."
This claim was pure speculation and not based on any evidence presented in the paper. If you read the paper critically you have to ask the question: :If the Farmers were Natufians affiliated with Sub-Saharan Africans and the Paleolithic Cro-Magnon are not grouped with modern Europeans, but agree with the Natufians, who were these alleged "Pleistocene inhabitants, [that] absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it", since the Paleolithic people were Grimaldi Negroes/ Cro Magnon?
This is especially confusing since Brace admits that the Cro-Magnon measurements fail to compare favorably with modern European groups, including the Basques.
The Egyptians do not depict any European types in their art until the Peoples of the Sea invasion. Where were these white Berbers hiding, if they represent the original Berbers,if the Egyptians didn't record them in their art relating to nationalities in the North Africa?
.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:What does genetics say about the time it takes to turn from Black to white?
Europeans turned white in the Mesolithic, based upon genetics. Europeans have derived allelle mutations on their melanocortin receptor that impedes melanin production.
The genes that cause them to be white, can be identified and dated. Thus skin color, which is caused by genes, can be assessed via genetics.
At least two groups of people, Africans, and Melanesians have the original underived skin color genes, that all others are derived from.
Genetics has proven that all people were originall black, that Europeans turned white, recently and only after settling Europe, and that dipigmentation, is a gradual process that has occurred independantly and relatively in several populations, thus the lighter skin tones of NorthEast Asia, are not indicative of mixture with whites, nor are the lighter skin tones of native African Khoisan, indicative of any kind of non African *mixture*.
If the Europeans turned white during the Mesolithic where is evidence of modern European skeletons associated with this population found dating to this period? I don't want any more of your opinions, please cite a source.
The Egyptians do not depict any European types in their art until the Peoples of the Sea invasion. Where were these white Berbers hiding, if they represent the original Berbers,if the Egyptians didn't record them in their art relating to nationalities in the North Africa?
.
Clyde,
You are mixing apples and oranges. On one hand you have the spread of populations from Eastern Africa carrying E3b2 lineages and speaking Berber languages. On the other hand you have the history of foreign migrations to Northern Africa. The two represents totally different sets of populations migrating to Northern Africa at different times and in different places. Nobody said that the ORIGINAL Northern Africans were white. What is being said is that over the last 4,000 years, foreigners from VARIOUS places in Europe and the Levant have interacted with Northern African populations and produced the phenotypes present in many Northern African populations.
In many cases, these migrations resulted in an assimilation of the migrating cultures into the linguistic and cultural patterns already present, thereby not IMPORTING a new way of life. In others there were new patterns of culture, thought and identity supplanted over older, preexisting patterns. Trying to unravel this tapestry of patterns in order to determine who did what to who, when and where is all part of the purpose of research.
A good example of this type of research is the information on the cultural similarities of some aspects of Berber culture and those from the Balkans and former Ottoman states that I posted. But this is just ONE period of the history of interactions between various cultures in Northern Africa and is a subset of the MANY interactions that took place during the period between 600 AD and 1900 AD. That is 1300 years of history. MANY things occurred during that period of history, which requires a detailed and thorough understanding of the political, economic, cultural, ethnic and social interests that drove the major changes during this ONE time period. Then before that there was the Roman Period, which lasted 700 years or so and had its own impact on Northern Africa. Before that you had the Greek period which presents another 500 years of history. And before that you had the period of the ancient Tehenu kingdoms and sea peoples. Before that you had the interactions with the peoples of the Greek isles of the Minoans.
So indeed, there is a lot of history to cover that goes back over 4,000 years.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:What does genetics say about the time it takes to turn from Black to white?
Europeans turned white in the Mesolithic, based upon genetics. Europeans have derived allelle mutations on their melanocortin receptor that impedes melanin production.
The genes that cause them to be white, can be identified and dated. Thus skin color, which is caused by genes, can be assessed via genetics.
At least two groups of people, Africans, and Melanesians have the original underived skin color genes, that all others are derived from.
Genetics has proven that all people were originall black, that Europeans turned white, recently and only after settling Europe, and that dipigmentation, is a gradual process that has occurred independantly and relatively in several populations, thus the lighter skin tones of NorthEast Asia, are not indicative of mixture with whites, nor are the lighter skin tones of native African Khoisan, indicative of any kind of non African *mixture*.
If the Europeans turned white during the Mesolithic where is evidence of modern European skeletons associated with this population found dating to this period? I don't want any more of your opinions, please cite a source.
The Egyptians do not depict any European types in their art until the Peoples of the Sea invasion. Where were these white Berbers hiding, if they represent the original Berbers,if the Egyptians didn't record them in their art relating to nationalities in the North Africa?
.
Clyde,
You are mixing apples and oranges. On one hand you have the spread of populations from Eastern Africa carrying E3b2 lineages and speaking Berber languages. On the other hand you have the history of foreign migrations to Northern Africa. The two represents totally different sets of populations migrating to Northern Africa at different times and in different places. Nobody said that the ORIGINAL Northern Africans were white. What is being said is that over the last 4,000 years, foreigners from VARIOUS places in Europe and the Levant have interacted with Northern African populations and produced the phenotypes present in many Northern African populations.
In many cases, these migrations resulted in an assimilation of the migrating cultures into the linguistic and cultural patterns already present, thereby not IMPORTING a new way of life. In others there were new patterns of culture, thought and identity supplanted over older, preexisting patterns. Trying to unravel this tapestry of patterns in order to determine who did what to who, when and where is all part of the purpose of research.
A good example of this type of research is the information on the cultural similarities of some aspects of Berber culture and those from the Balkans and former Ottoman states that I posted. But this is just ONE period of the history of interactions between various cultures in Northern Africa and is a subset of the MANY interactions that took place during the period between 600 AD and 1900 AD. That is 1300 years of history. MANY things occurred during that period of history, which requires a detailed and thorough understanding of the political, economic, cultural, ethnic and social interests that drove the major changes during this ONE time period. Then before that there was the Roman Period, which lasted 700 years or so and had its own impact on Northern Africa. Before that you had the Greek period which presents another 500 years of history. And before that you had the period of the ancient Tehenu kingdoms and sea peoples. Before that you had the interactions with the peoples of the Greek isles of the Minoans.
So indeed, there is a lot of history to cover that goes back over 4,000 years.
Agreed. I can accept the reality that the Taureg, may represent the "Berbers" who carried E3b2 to North Africa.
Having said this I do not believe the Taureg are the original North Africans. These people were Garamante and other folk, who lived mainly in the Fezzan and settled areas in Chad, Niger, the Niger Valley and thence the Senegambia.The chariot routes, and writing clearly move in this direction.
The problem is Rasol is arguing that the white Berbers represent the original inhabitants of North Africa. I am claiming that these whites appeared within North Africa over the past 4000 years and therefore can not be representatives of the original Sub-Saharan African population that lived in the region prior to the coming of the Peoples of the Sea.
European with Horns tribesman of the Peoples of the Sea
It is obvious to me that the Gutians who lived in Mesopotamia are the ancestors of most "lightskinned" Arabs. These Gutians do no look like the modern European type; and it would appear that they were contained in the Levant up until the expansion of the Peoples of the Sea after 1200BC.
Hittite/ Late Gutian/ Proto-Arab
It was after this period that we see the depictions of more European and Proto-Arab types in Egyptian art. In my opinion, it was the Peoples of the Sea and their Hittite allies (fine representatives of the late Gutian type) that led the way for many non-Blacks entering Egypt.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:If the Europeans turned white during the Mesolithic where is evidence of modern European skeletons associated with this population found dating to this period? I don't want any more of your opinions, please cite a source.
Ok, let's break it down shall we?
When did Europeans turn white, based on scientific sources?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
As for, "modern European skeleten associated with this population".... I can't answer this question because it is nonsensical.
How would I find and ancient skeleten of a modern European?
And what would this have to do with the question about skin color?
We can find evidence that the original population to settle Europe was tropically adapted in terms of skeletal form - limb to torso ratio.
These adaptations were lost over time and most particularly by the Mesolithic accordinging to Holliday, and Trinkhous.
quote:REPORTS Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites, Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1016 - 1018.
By: Wolfgang Haak,1* Peter Forster,2 Barbara Bramanti,1 Shuichi Matsumura,2 Guido Brandt,1 Marc Tänzer,1 Richard Villems,3 Colin Renfrew,2 Detlef Gronenborn,4 Kurt Werner Alt,1 Joachim Burger1 The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers.
We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these *first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages."*
^ Exactly, this concords with Brace: "Qustionable contribution of the Neolithic to European cranial form"... although I submit that Brace study is really a polite way of asking about -> The questionable contribution of Europe to the Neolithic. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:If the Europeans turned white during the Mesolithic where is evidence of modern European skeletons associated with this population found dating to this period? I don't want any more of your opinions, please cite a source.
Ok, let's break it down shall we?
When did Europeans turn white, based on scientific sources?
Proto-Type White Berber/Tibesman Peoples of the Sea
[IMG]
. That's right we just don't know. But what we do know is that the first evidence of the European type, that agrees with the "white Berbers" came to Africa around 1200 BC. Given this reality the "white Berbers" can not be representative of the ancient North Africans.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: As for, "modern European skeleten associated with this population".... I can't answer this question because it is nonsensical.
How would I find and ancient skeleten of a modern European?
And what would this have to do with the question about skin color?
We can find evidence that the original population to settle Europe was tropically adapted in terms of skeletal form - limb to torso ratio.
These adaptations were lost over time and most particularly by the Mesolithic accordinging to Holliday, and Trinkhous.
quote:REPORTS Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites, Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1016 - 1018.
By: Wolfgang Haak,1* Peter Forster,2 Barbara Bramanti,1 Shuichi Matsumura,2 Guido Brandt,1 Marc Tänzer,1 Richard Villems,3 Colin Renfrew,2 Detlef Gronenborn,4 Kurt Werner Alt,1 Joachim Burger1 The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers.
We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these *first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages."*
^ Exactly, this concords with Brace: "Qustionable contribution of the Neolithic to European cranial form"... although I submit that Brace study is really a polite way of asking about -> The questionable contribution of Europe to the Neolithic.
This is just the point, we can find ancient skeletons of Blacks but no skeletons of these imagined whites in ancient Africa, or Eurasia.
But we do know that they appear in Africa around 1200 BC. This suggest that the origin of the "white Berbers" probably goes back to this period of time.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Moreover, if the Europeans turned white in Europe--when did they arrive in Europe?
We already know this, based on anthropology and genetics, per Peter Underhill:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about *40,000 years ago*, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.
Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.
This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived by hunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine. [this is time period during which Europeans lost tropical adaptations and leucoderm melanocortin mutations begin to emerge]
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
[And then the Neolithic is introduced into Europe via demic diffusion]
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, Europeans lived by gathering and hunting.
After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:This is just the point, we can find ancient skeletons of Blacks but no skeletons of these imagined whites in ancient Africa, or Eurasia.
Did you simply ignore the article posted above?
White skin is a recent evolutionary development.
There are no *ancient whites.*
You ask me for proof of this, I present it, and then you ignore it.
This is why you fail to progress in terms of your understandings of modern bioanthropology.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Moreover, if the Europeans turned white in Europe--when did they arrive in Europe?
We already know this, based on anthropology and genetics, per Peter Underhill:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about *40,000 years ago*, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows. Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine. [this is time period during which Europeans lost tropical adaptations and leucoderm melanocortin mutations begin to emerge]
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
[And then the Neolithic is introduced into Europe via demic diffusion]
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, Europeans lived by gathering and hunting.
After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products.
Why are you posting this information. The research of Haak et al and Brace et al contradict all these dates which were hypothesized in the first place. These advanced people from the Levant moving into Europe 8000 years ago were probably Blacks.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:This is just the point, we can find ancient skeletons of Blacks but no skeletons of these imagined whites in ancient Africa, or Eurasia.
Did you simply ignore the article posted above?
White skin is a recent evolutionary development.
There are no *ancient whites.*
You ask me for proof of this, I present it, and then you ignore it.
This is why you fail to progress in terms of your understandings of modern bioanthropology.
You still have not answered my question. If the original Berbers were Black. How did they turn into the white Berbers, who you claim represent the ancient population of North Africa.
.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Clyde, Rasol answered your question. YOU YOURSELF posted information showing that the original populations of North Africa were NOT whites. These people came much later than the original Northern Africans. Also, it has been shown on another thread that the Berber language arose in East Africa. Therefore, like I said before, you are dealing with a series of migrations and expansions into Northern Africa over the last 4,000 years which has introduced foreign ancestry into Northern African populations, Berber speakers included.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Clyde, Rasol answered your question.
Correct, and he knows this.
He simply does not want to let go of a view of history where skin color defines race, and everything else can only be understood in terms of race.
The exciting moral to this story is that modern scholarship, including linguistics and genetics have deconstructed the race[ist] discourse in history.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:winters: Moreover, if the Europeans turned white in Europe--when did they arrive in Europe?
quote: rasol: we already know this, based on anthropology and genetics, per Peter Underhill:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about *40,000 years ago*, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows. Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine. [this is time period during which Europeans lost tropical adaptations and leucoderm melanocortin mutations begin to emerge]
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
[And then the Neolithic is introduced into Europe via demic diffusion]
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, Europeans lived by gathering and hunting.
After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products.
quote:winters: Why are you posting this information. The research of Haak et al and Brace et al contradict all these dates
No, they don't.
Brace and Underhill are essentially saying the same thing which is why Brace references the genetic work of Underhill et. al as evidence.
1) Europe settled during the Upper Paleolithic.
2) UP Europeans were still somewhat tropical in adaptation [ie - non white].
3) Europeans, cave dwelling hunter-gatherers lose tropical adaptations [ie - turn white] during the mesolithic Ice age.
4) Neolithic introduced by Afro-Asians via demic diffusion. [not white]
5) Europeans [white] adopt cattle and agro-CULTURE from the Neolithic Afro-Asian [non white].
6) Europeans are descendant primarily from white [hunter gatherers] who adopted the culture of non white Afro-Asians.
As to why I'm posting this....apparently you don't understand it, and that's good reason, wouldn't you say?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
My comments are in Bold
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:winters: Moreover, if the Europeans turned white in Europe--when did they arrive in Europe?
quote: rasol: we already know this, based on anthropology and genetics, per Peter Underhill:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about *40,000 years ago*, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows. Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine. [this is time period during which Europeans lost tropical adaptations and leucoderm melanocortin mutations begin to emerge]
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
[And then the Neolithic is introduced into Europe via demic diffusion]
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, Europeans lived by gathering and hunting.
After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products.
quote:winters: Why are you posting this information. The research of Haak et al and Brace et al contradict all these dates
No, they don't.
Brace and Underhill are essentially saying the same thing which is why Brace references the genetic work of Underhill et. al as evidence.
1) Europe settled during the Upper Paleolithic.True 2) UP Europeans were still somewhat tropical in adaptation [ie - non white]. True 3) Europeans, cave dwelling lose tropical adaptations [ie - turn white] during the mesolithic Ice age. True the Blacks who fled into the Anatolian caves probably became depigmented because of the absence of sun light.But these "whites" probably remained in these caves until after 2000 BC 4) Neolithic introduced by Afro-Asians via demic diffusion. [not white] True
5) Europeans [white] adopt cattle and agro-CULTURE from the Neolithic Afro-Asian [non white]. Ture but this probably took place in Anatolia, not Europe. The writing civilization and culture of the Old Europeans, represented a matriarchial society--truely disimilar to the paternalistic culture associated with Indo-European peoples.
6 Europeans are descendant primarily from white [hunter gatherers] who adopted the culture of non white Afro-Asians. There were no white hunter-gatherers in Europe. The jury is still out on where Europeans originated but they did not originate in Europe proper--but they may have exited their cave homes in Anatolia. Rasol
quote: As to why I'm posting this....apparently you don't understand it, and that's good reason, wouldn't you say?
How can modern Europeans be the decendants of hunter gathers in Europe, when the ancient Europeans were haplogroup N, and the Natufians were probably carriers of E3b to Europe since they originated in East Africa.
It is my opinion the nomadic Indo-European speaking population of Europe simply wiped out the settle Black Agro-Pastoral people, and replaced them much the same way they did the Native Americans of the United States. The genocide that accounted for the disappearence of the Native Americans, is an example of an historical event, that was probably earlier perpetuated in Europe.
The linguistic data makes it clear they descended from a nomadic people--not hunter gatherers.
.
.
Aren't Europeans R ? Today there is no evidence of hunter gathers in Europe carrying the R gene.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Aren't Europeans R ?
No, Europeans have no R. They have no R1*. They have only R1b and to a lesser degree R1a.
R1a and R1b split off in central Asia aproximately 30/40~ thousand years ago.
As a result, R1a is predominant in central Asia, fading out in Eastern Europe, and R1b is predominent in Europe.
R1, parent of R1a and R1b is found only in west central Africa, Egypt and Jordan.
Prior to R1 all earlier non African Y chromosome lineages converge on East African M168 at 70~kya.
So it's clear where Europeans come from, and when they come from.
quote:Today there is no evidence of hunter gathers in Europe carrying the R gene.
There's precious little evidence of hunter gatherers in Europe - today - period, so I don't understand this comment?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Supercar/Mystery Solver
quote:
Who said "Zenaga" was ever a language, much less "Numidian", as opposed to appellation of certain groups. What is your source for this questionable claim. And how does this help you with the fact that you cited me, but didn't actually address what was cited?
You don't know what you'r talking about as usual.
Which would make it even more remarkable, considering that I always descredit you - thus making you even sillier or unknowledgable about you're talking. And you call yourself a professor.
quote:Clyde Winters:
There is a language called Numidian language. See below:
"Numidian" is no more a language than saying "Ghanaian language"; does that make "Ghana" a language?
quote:Clyde Winters:
The Numidian Language Language Name: Numidian Alternate Name(s): Ancient Berber Lybico-Berber Once Spoken in: Algeria Morocco Language Code: nxm (Former code: XNUM) Status: Extinct Family: Afroasiatic Subgroup: Berber Subgrouping Code: AFA Brief Description: An ancient language of Northwest Africa. c. 200 BC.
Find more information on Numidian Retrieve: Everything on Numidian in LINGUIST Database View: Listing of Numidian documents in Odin Database Search in: Google Database Rosetta Database Page Updated: 06-Jun-2007
Please extensively reconstruct the "Numidian language", that you seem to know so much about.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: 5) Europeans [white] adopt cattle and agro-CULTURE from the Neolithic Afro-Asian [non white].
quote: Winters: True but this probably took place in Anatolia, not Europe.
Incorrect, based on the divergence of European sub-lineages, several distinct populations are descendant from distinct Ice Age refuges.
All of them inherent this culture, so the case cannot be, that they are *only* descendant from a single group in Turkey.
quote:The writing civilization and culture of the Old Europeans, represented a matriarchial society--truely disimilar to the paternalistic culture associated with Indo-European peoples.
If so, so what?
quote:There were no white hunter-gatherers in Europe.
Actually this is possibly a fairpoint.....according to the article cited above the origin of light skin in Europeans is between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago, and the farming diet which would be post neolithic, and the associated lack of vitimin D and the wearing of clothing exascerbated European dipigmentation.
So, you are right, that we can't say for certain that many Europeans were white before this. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mystery Solver
quote:
Virtually all studies based/relying on demographics are assessed in terms of statistics & probability and repeat studies, apparently because it not temporarily, spatially and financially viable to get every single person on the planet to participate, not to mention that one cannot always get everyone to participate. And so, the subjects whose data have been collected are used as being representative of a given demographic segment and section of the population under study. You need to familiarize yourself with mathematics, and its function in the business of collecting statistical data.
This is false. Genetic studies are based on an available sample, which naturally going to be self-selected by the people who chose , or have taken a test. Please cite at least one article where the researchers used a systematic, random or stratified sample. I have read many pepers to date and not found any.
.
You lie. Genetic studies are based on calling in ‘volunteers’ to a designated place to provide blood samples [hair collection, mouth swabs or what have you], as well as available samples to be used under consent of the donors or the overseers of those samples. It is random, because the Geneticists don’t select the contents of these samples; whatever is there, would be a pre-existing entity beyond the Geneticist’s control - use your head. Again, would you have people ‘tortured’ to participate in studies? Your comments always reach such sub-intellectual comic levels. You read things, only for the heck of reading them, but not really understand - like the post you just cited.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Mystery Solver
quote:
Genetics [as is the case with linguistics], doesn't deal with absolute accuracy, but certainly works with methodological approximations by way of statistics and probability, as I just said. Hence, actual facts are collected from firsthand tests and then these are interpreted in a broader-context by probability assessment, which takes us to...
If they do not deal with "absolute accuracy" the authors of these articles are making good guesses. Nothing they write can be assumed to be factual or proof,
Are you pretending to be this much unperceptive, or are you for real? The data they collect is ‘absolute’ facts, because these are based on actual testing of samples. The probability of frequency of the said results as representative of a population, is based on repeat studies and the probability statistical analysis of extrapolation. Mathematics, or the business of collecting data is apparently foreign to you.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mystery Solver
quote:
Apparently they were preceded by other populations in the region, as late Pleistocene crania attest to. That's beside the point. The point is that they are 'indigenous' and have an upward date expansion of ca. 8 ky ago westward and northward.
Cite the article discussing osteological evidence of modern Europeans 8ky ago.
Illogical; null and void - citation?
Learn to read what is said, and not what you imagine.
Where is your point-by-point layout of what is wrong with Cruciani’s data method, not to mention your seriously bankrupt, if not questionable charge that Cruciani et al don’t take ‘population movements into account’? That is a serious charge, that needs to be backed up asap.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote: You lie. Genetic studies are based on calling in ‘volunteers’ to a designated place to provide blood samples [hair collection, mouth swabs or what have you], as well as available samples to be used under consent of the donors or the overseers of those samples
Supercar if a person volunteers for study he self selects him/herself for the study. This is an available sample. The fact that it is an available sample means that you only have people in the study that want to be in the study. This type of study is not a representative sample of any population except the participants in the study.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The fact that it is an available sample means that you only have people in the study that want to be in the study.
Volunteers yes.
quote:This type of study is not a representative.
Most medical research is based on volunteers.
Exceptions would situations such as the involuntary NAZI medical experiments with their concentration camp victims, and the notorious Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment wherein the United States government unknowingly 'studied' but did not treat African American citisens suffering from the disease.
The fact that a study selects from among volunteers does not necessarily invalidate it.
For the volunteer status to violate rule of objectivity, you would have to demonstrate how the fact that the person volunteered likely altered the result in a statistical way.
Ex:
A person volunteers to join a political party.
You then take a poll of such volunteers asking them their political views....
this is absurd, as the sampling predetermines a favorable opinion of select political views, by virtue of how was sampled.
In contrast from the same pool of volunteers you sample them to see how many are left handed and how many are right handed. This is not absurd, as the their volunteer status does not per-se alter the prospect of their being left handed or right handed.
A study is not invalidated soley because its participants are volunteers.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Poor Clyde Winters is just too engulfed in racialism (racism) to comprehend any of the info that discredits racialism.
I hope this helps you Clyde: "The majority of the maternal ancestors of the [Maghrebi] Berbers must have come from Europe and the Near East since the Neolithic." - Rando
Maghrebi [white] Berbers have predominantly European maternal lineages, but even then they have African paternal lineages. 'White' Brazilians also have predominant Native American and African maternal lineages. Which is why skin color does NOT reflect lineage. How many blacks in America alone have European ancestry? How many whites have African ancestry?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote: You lie. Genetic studies are based on calling in ‘volunteers’ to a designated place to provide blood samples [hair collection, mouth swabs or what have you], as well as available samples to be used under consent of the donors or the overseers of those samples
Supercar if a person volunteers for study he self selects him/herself for the study. This is an available sample. The fact that it is an available sample means that you only have people in the study that want to be in the study. This type of study is not a representative sample of any population except the participants in the study.
Rasol's response was appropriate enough, as it is clear that he obviously understands what you just cited, while you apparently don't [even though you've been told this multiple times now].
*Again, would you have participants in the study tortured to participate? - you don't answer.
*Again, do the geneticists not actually get blood samples of participants? If so, do they not test these samples? In turn if so, do their results from these tests not reflect the 'absolute facts' of those samples? - you don't answer.
*Can the geneticists do anything about the microscopic content of their subjects' DNA samples? If yes, can you eleborate on how? If not, is this condition then not a random aspect of the sampling, as per the specific composition of these samples? - you don't answer.
*You were asked to show exactly what was wrong [point-by-point] with Cruciani et al.'s dating method and - you don't answer.
*You charged the above authors of doing population genetics without taking into account population movements. You were asked to corroborate this with citations - you don't answer.
It is quite amusing to see a person who cannot even distinguish between a male Y chromosome haplotype and a female transmitted mtDNA haplotype, come here and pass off unfounded judgement of the genetics discipline. Apparently, you don't understand the discipline enough to make an informed assessment of its potential. This is why you continue to use material that the authors of which, themselves, have discredited.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Interestingly enough, even the Egyptians seemed to have understood the concept of female lineages thousands of years ago: (Note the image of the goddess on the upper right and how her dress looks much like the modern symbol of the genetic spiral)
And this image says it all about modern Berber lineages:
The image immediately above, ... love it, love it!
It's so much like that old "Cretan" one with the dark African males and the palish females with jugs atop their head.
Cultural continuity over millenia???
Naw, just random coincidence at play.
Interesting nonetheless.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Takruri what is it with you in black Aegean males and white females? Again, I have also seen pictures of Cretan females just as dark, and what does Crete in the eastern Mediterranean have to do with Northwest Africans?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote: You lie. Genetic studies are based on calling in ‘volunteers’ to a designated place to provide blood samples [hair collection, mouth swabs or what have you], as well as available samples to be used under consent of the donors or the overseers of those samples
Supercar if a person volunteers for study he self selects him/herself for the study. This is an available sample. The fact that it is an available sample means that you only have people in the study that want to be in the study. This type of study is not a representative sample of any population except the participants in the study.
Rasol's response was appropriate enough, as it is clear that he obviously understands what you just cited, while you apparently don't [even though you've been told this multiple times now].
*Again, would you have participants in the study tortured to participate? - you don't answer.
*Again, do the geneticists not actually get blood samples of participants? If so, do they not test these samples? In turn if so, do their results from these tests not reflect the 'absolute facts' of those samples? - you don't answer.
*Can the geneticists do anything about the microscopic content of their subjects' DNA samples? If yes, can you eleborate on how? If not, is this condition then not a random aspect of the sampling, as per the specific composition of these samples? - you don't answer.
*You were asked to show exactly what was wrong [point-by-point] with Cruciani et al.'s dating method and - you don't answer.
*You charged the above authors of doing population genetics without taking into account population movements. You were asked to corroborate this with citations - you don't answer.
It is quite amusing to see a person who cannot even distinguish between a male Y chromosome haplotype and a female transmitted mtDNA haplotype, come here and pass off unfounded judgement of the genetics discipline. Apparently, you don't understand the discipline enough to make an informed assessment of its potential. This is why you continue to use material that the authors of which, themselves, have discredited.
It is more confounding to read statements by someone who knows nothing at all about research methods-- discuss how research is conducted.
And then criticize research that has been published recently in leading biological journals. If I did not understand the research methods of these disciplines my work would not have been published.
You claim to be the expert geneticist, where are your publications Mr. Know it all?
At least I am brave enough to publish my work. Cite some of your published articles in biology journals if you know so much.
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote: You lie. Genetic studies are based on calling in ‘volunteers’ to a designated place to provide blood samples [hair collection, mouth swabs or what have you], as well as available samples to be used under consent of the donors or the overseers of those samples
Supercar if a person volunteers for study he self selects him/herself for the study. This is an available sample. The fact that it is an available sample means that you only have people in the study that want to be in the study. This type of study is not a representative sample of any population except the participants in the study.
Rasol's response was appropriate enough, as it is clear that he obviously understands what you just cited, while you apparently don't [even though you've been told this multiple times now].
*Again, would you have participants in the study tortured to participate? - you don't answer.
*Again, do the geneticists not actually get blood samples of participants? If so, do they not test these samples? In turn if so, do their results from these tests not reflect the 'absolute facts' of those samples? - you don't answer.
*Can the geneticists do anything about the microscopic content of their subjects' DNA samples? If yes, can you eleborate on how? If not, is this condition then not a random aspect of the sampling, as per the specific composition of these samples? - you don't answer.
*You were asked to show exactly what was wrong [point-by-point] with Cruciani et al.'s dating method and - you don't answer.
*You charged the above authors of doing population genetics without taking into account population movements. You were asked to corroborate this with citations - you don't answer.
It is quite amusing to see a person who cannot even distinguish between a male Y chromosome haplotype and a female transmitted mtDNA haplotype, come here and pass off unfounded judgement of the genetics discipline. Apparently, you don't understand the discipline enough to make an informed assessment of its potential. This is why you continue to use material that the authors of which, themselves, have discredited.
It is more confounding to read statements by someone who knows nothing at all about research methods-- discuss how research is conducted.
Not as confounding as someone who isn't even capable of directly addressing what was requested, as laid out. Considering that I know the difference between a male lineage and a female one when I come across either, it is pretty much safe to assume that I'm well ahead of you. If you can't even tell the difference between male and female lineages, what makes you think you are in a position to even be criticizing geneticists, rightly or wrongly? To this extent, if I didn't know what I was talking about, what does that place you - at the bottom of the barrel?
quote:Clyde Winters:
And then criticize research that has been published recently in leading biological journals. If I did not understand the research methods of these disciplines my work would not have been published.
Suffering from amnesia, are we? You were the 'one' who took the initiative of criticizing geneticists with what amounts to cartoonish claims, and yet when asked to support these awkward charges, what do you do? You guessed it - no answer [outside of incoherent ranting].
Gist: Answers, Clyde! Anything less, is unacceptable.
quote:Clyde Winters:
You claim to be the expert geneticist
Citation?
quote:Clyde Winters: , where are your publications Mr. Know it all?
Juvenile - off-point. The best you can offer as a distraction for your incapacity to answer?
quote:Clyde Winters:
At least I am brave enough to publish my work.
Lying through your teeth isn't bravery; it is a disgrace.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Cite some of your published articles in biology journals if you know so much.
The sort of pseudo-scientific eloquence from 'a brave publisher' [certainly not brave on producing 'subtantial merit']. However, as for your off-point question, the answer is: not until you submit answers to the outstanding specific questions relayed to you, point-by-point, in response to your spooky charges against geneticists, including Cruciani et al. You'd get right to answering 'all' the outstanding requests, if you are really as 'brave' as you proclaim to be, and not full of 'it'.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
..
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL. Well said, Supe.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
The distribution of H1, the largest sub-clade, displays two peaks, one in Iberia and another in Scandinavia (Fig. 2B). However, the Norwegian sample size is low (n = 18) and haplogroup H is overrepresented (∼70%, while larger data sets for Norway point to a frequency of ∼50%: Richards et al. 2000). When we removed the Norwegian sample, the Scandinavian peak disappeared, and the picture showed only the decreasing frequency of subhaplogroup H1 from the southwest to the north and east. H1 is almost exclusively European, with its only incursion into the Near East being a few Palestinian individuals bearing the most common haplotype. This absence of derived lineages in the Near East sample suggests that the H1 sub-clade had its origin in Europe. H1 has an age of ∼14,000 years (SE 4000) using codingregion data and ∼16,000 years (SE 3500) using HVS-I. No significant difference between its diversity in western and eastern Europe was manifest.
"The majority of maternal ancestors of the Berbers must have COME FROM EUROPE and the Near East SINCE the Neolithic."
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Your proposition is that 'Crete' was predominantly black?
The few dark females don't negate or erase the over riding fact of light females, and those are light not dark females in the 'Cretan' painting. Can't you see that only the light females could've paled the original North African complexion.
I maintain that in that painting we have the earliest quasi-historic record for one source of North African mtDNA.
And understand that those are North African men not black Aegean men in that 'Cretan' painting next to the jug balancing paloured girls.
Northwest Africans aren't a static non-moving population. You know of course that the iMazighen of Awdaghust originated in the whereabouts of Tripolitania?
In short, the ancient dark Libyans from Cyrenaica to Tunis got children on pale north Med girls from Sicily on eastward long before the Iberian incretions of mainly the Islamic age.
From one work of art to the other we see a theme of dark North African male with his pale jug handling female. It's not what is it with me, it's what is it with them.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Takruri what is it with you in black Aegean males and white females? Again, I have also seen pictures of Cretan females just as dark, and what does Crete in the eastern Mediterranean have to do with Northwest Africans?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
If you can forgive my interuption with historical materials in a thread for anthropometric and genetic evidence, I'll say this.
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE) moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
The Meshwesh moved from the west to the east near 1250 BCE. Then, some 500 years later. Herodotus records the westward migration of his Libyans (E3b2-M81 backflow?).
Another 400 to 600 years later we read of blond Libyan women in the east not the west (Callimachus; Lucan).
I find it hard to accept that only far northwest North Africans are miscegenated with Euros just because they show the heaviest incidence of Eurasian mtDNA when there are indications from other fields that from Cyrenaica westward miscegenation has been ongoing since at least 1600 BCE.
* NRY data - Arredi 2004, Table 2
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Correction: Another 200 to 500 years later we read of blond Libyan women in the east not the west (Callimachus, c.250 BCE; Lucan, c.50 CE).
Addendum: ... indications from other fields that from Cyrenaica westward miscegenation has been ongoing since at least 1600 BCE.
2000 BCE
NAs export ivory and ostrich eggs, destination Iberia
NAs import bell shaped vessels at Cueta and Tetuan, source Iberia
1500 BCE
NAs import copper/bronze arrowheads to no further west than Algiers, source Iberia
NAs import Sicilian and Pantellaria worked obsidian at locations spanning Korba to Bizerta, source Lipari islands across the Messina Straits
c.1500 to 1300 BCE
"industrial" influences from Cyprus & Asia Minor carried by Aegean & Phoenician sailors via Malta, Pantellaria, and Sicily
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
It's interesting to note that the putative mrca of ProtoBerber, predates the 5000 kya mrca of M-81, denoting it's divergence from M-35.
More data regarding the Siwa population.
Could be - they are result of recent migrations of NorthWest African Berber to NorthEast Africa, but the low level of M-81 makes this questionable.
It could also be that they are remnant of the original ProtoBerber population, whose own genetic composition has been influenced by subsequent local events.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
To Takruri, I thought that the idea of predominantly black male Cretans was your idea. Crete was initially settled by North Africans and then peoples from Western Asia (the Levant and Asia Minor). What is your premise?
To Rasol, do you have the list of anthroplogical types of North Africans identified by Western scholars??
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I never wrote any such thing.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Hastily compiled table to show the guessing game of NA NRY marker TMRCAs EA = East Africa origin
code:
E3b M35 M78 M81
EA 25.6 - EA 23.2 ?? 5.6 Cruciani 2004
EA 30 7.6 19 Bosch 2001 (low end figures)
8.26 4.48 4.15 Arredi 2004
EA 29.2 EA 14.9 8.6 Semino 2004
quote:Originally posted by rasol: It's interesting to note that the putative mrca of ProtoBerber, predates the 5000 kya mrca of M-81, denoting it's divergence from M-35.
More data regarding the Siwa population.
Could be - they are result of recent migrations of NorthWest African Berber to NorthEast Africa, but the low level of M-81 makes this questionable.
It could also be that they are remnant of the original ProtoBerber population, whose own genetic composition has been influenced by subsequent local events.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
As for Northwest African expansion being older than East, implicated above by the back-migration eastward in this:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin.
^Would be inconsistent with this:
However, the E3b3-M123 chromosomes may have spread predominantly toward the east, whereas E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco (33% and 69% in Moroccan Arabs and Moroccan Berbers, respectively [Cruciani et al. 2002]), dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa 2 ky ago (Cruciani et al. 2002). The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario. The Turkish collection displays a near absence of E3b2-M81 (1 in 523 males) but displays polymorphic levels of the other two M35 derivatives (5.5% for E3b3-M123 and 5% for E3b1-M78 [Cinniolu et al. 2004]). - Luis et al. 2004
And this:
A clinal pattern of haplogroup variation like the one we observe can be expected from an east-to-west population expansion, and the finding of lower E3b2 STR variation in the west than in central North Africa (table A2 [online only]), accompanied by a substantial increase in frequency of this haplogroup, is most readily explained by expansion into virtually uninhabited terrain by populations experiencing increasing drift (Barbujani et al. 1994). - Arredi et al. 2004
quote: al Takruri:
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE) moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
Perhaps you’ll elaborate if not so: the TMRCA as presented above suggests that E3b2 and E3b1 are of the same age?
If so, this would be inconsistent with most of the studies regularly cited here and elsewhere. E3b2 is consistently shown as the younger lineage of the two.
quote: al Takruri:
The Meshwesh moved from the west to the east near 1250 BCE. Then, some 500 years later. Herodotus records the westward migration of his Libyans (E3b2-M81 backflow?).
If by Meshwesh you are referring to coastal northwest African Tamazight groups, which study are you going by, regarding the westward movement and occurring in the said timeframe?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
It's interesting to note that the putative mrca of ProtoBerber, predates the 5000 kya mrca of M-81, denoting it's divergence from M-35.
E-M81 expansion ages have been estimated to be anywhere between ~2ky ago and 8ky ago, according to most studies.
quote: rasol:
More data regarding the Siwa population.
Could be - they are result of recent migrations of NorthWest African Berber to NorthEast Africa, but the low level of M-81 makes this questionable.
And also made questionable by finds like this, just to reiterate:
However, the E3b3-M123 chromosomes may have spread predominantly toward the east, whereas E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco (33% and 69% in Moroccan Arabs and Moroccan Berbers, respectively [Cruciani et al. 2002]), dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa 2 ky ago (Cruciani et al. 2002). The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario. The Turkish collection displays a near absence of E3b2-M81 (1 in 523 males) but displays polymorphic levels of the other two M35 derivatives (5.5% for E3b3-M123 and 5% for E3b1-M78 [Cinniolu et al. 2004]). - Luis et al. 2004
quote:rasol:
It could also be that they are remnant of the original ProtoBerber population, whose own genetic composition has been influenced by subsequent local events.
Which would be consistent with the above. I haven’t come across a single study which shows E-M81 expansion dates in East Africa being younger than those from west Africa. I have however, seen the contrary assessment.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
See Arredi 2004 for the moot TRMCA.
quote: The TMRCAs for
E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
and E3b2 (2.8–8.2 KY)
should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of
53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001).
They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation ... and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004).
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
When read in context and quoted in full its the spread of "Berber" language that
started at Darfur
went west by northwest across the Sahara
then back east but to further north (slightly inland from the littoral)
This can easily be seen in the map accompanying Williamson. In it one can see "Berber" reaching the north of Egypt by two different routes.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
As for Northwest African expansion being older than East, implicated above by the back-migration eastward in this:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin.
^Would be inconsistent with this:
...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
started at Darfur went west by northwest across the Sahara then back east but to further north (slightly inland from the littoral)
^ There is certainly linguistic and genetic basis for the East West movement.... but what is the basis for the West to East movement?
I agree with the general premise of the map below, but i'd be amazed if it were literally accurate in minor detail.
For Tehenu, why not the more parsimonious movement from the upper to lower nile, as opposed to around the central sahel an then back east?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
As can be seen in the table a few posts above, Bosch makes E3b2-M81 out to be the youngest. And this is one of the discrepencies, along with the total disagreement between the four referenced geneticists on the involved TMRCAs, that led me to call it a "guessing game."
But there's more in Bosch 2001 contrary to the status quo here.
quote: Assuming a constant population size, an infinite-sites model, and population subdivision between NW Africa and Iberia,
we used Genetree (Griffiths and Tavare´1994) to estimate the age of M35 (giving H36) to be 53,000±21,000 years ago (ya), that of M78 (giving H35) to be 16,000±10,000 ya, and that of M81 (giving H38) to be 32,000±11,000 ya.
Under the more likely condition of population growth (Thomson et al. 2000), the respective estimated ages were 30,000±6,000 ya, _7,600±6,000 ya, and 19,000±4,000 ya.
Hence, the expansion that brought the ancestors of H35 and H38 (or even those haplotypes themselves) into NW Africa could have happened at any time after 30,000 ya, and, more specifically, it could have happened during the Upper Paleolithic.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ... most of the studies regularly cited here and elsewhere. E3b2 is consistently shown as the younger lineage of the two.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Maybe Williamson thinks the THHNW weren't "Berber" speakers?
I think the less parsimonious movement arrow is based on the historic movement of the Meshwesh (known "Berber speakers") from west to east.
Genetic evidence was not consulted by any of the contributors to Vogel's volume.
Also what do you think about the date the map attaches to what it labels as a Temehu branch (the one that parsimoniously should extend clear north through all the oasis right up to the western delta home of the THHNW? Note that date matches the first record of TMHHW (Harkhuf's mention of Yam? marching to war against them).
And as for taking it all literally, I find it hard that just because TMHHW enter history at that point in time and space that that's when their branch of "Berber" developed.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: started at Darfur went west by northwest across the Sahara then back east but to further north (slightly inland from the littoral)
^ There is certainly linguistic and genetic basis for the East West movement.... but what is the basis for the West to East movement?
I agree with the general premise of the map below, but i'd be amazed if it were literally accurate in minor detail.
For Tehenu, why not the more parsimonious movement from the upper to lower nile, as opposed to around the central sahel an then back east?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Maybe Williamson thinks the THHNW weren't "Berber" speakers?
^ Aren't the Tehenu on his map, essentially the 'north Temehu'?
Doesn't this correspond to the Siwa, ie - the Egyptian berber?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't know and s/he's dead. Have to check the history c. 2000 BCE before I could even guess what North Temehu is supposed to mean.
I do think Siwa is included in that North Temehu arrow. But don't forget that Cyrenaica to the Western Delta is its main thrust.
Anyway, Williamson is short on text and in fact defers to P. Behrens. The Williamson text:
quote: P. Behrens has suggested that Beber had its homeland in western Sudan and, from around 8000 years ago, moved north toward the Nile, northwest into northern Africa, and also into western Africa to become the rather highly differentiated Zenaga of southern Maritania. He also suggests that proto-Berber speakers, like proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers, were pastoralists Modern Berber speakers are adapted to desert conditions and seem to have replaced Niger-Congo, probably Mande, speakers, in parts of their present range. Since Berber has relatively little internal differentiation compared with the deep divisions within Chadic, proto-Chadic speakers must have begun their own move at a much earlier period.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't get it. Can you please rephrase your question?
Meshwesh means the Meshwesh of AE record who moving from Tunisian/Libyan Syrtis forced every ethny along the way to join them as they marched on Egypt. Their movement was from west to east c.1250 just as I wrote.
Where are you getting a westward movement of Meshwesh from?
If by Meshwesh you are referring to coastal northwest African Tamazight groups, which study are you going by, regarding the westward movement and occurring in the said timeframe?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
As indicated by the asterisk at the bottom of the post where I made the questioned statement, the NRY data was taken from Arredi 2004, Table 2 which I reproduce in part below:
code:
Table 2 TMRCA Estimates and 95% CIs of Y-Chromosomal Lineages in North Africa ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TMRCA [IN KY] (95% CI) -------------------------------------- SAMPLED NO. OF 30 Years/ 25 Years/ LINEAGES MUTATION CHROMOSOMES Generation) Generation) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- . E3b M35 226 8.26 (5.18–12.37) 14.33 (9.32–19.19) E3b1 M78 38 4.48 (3.01–6.16) 8.10 (5.42–10.71) E3b2 M81 165 4.15 (2.84–5.97) 6.90 (5.91–8.19)
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote: al Takruri:
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE) moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
Perhaps you’ll elaborate if not so: the TMRCA as presented above suggests that E3b2 and E3b1 are of the same age?
If so, this would be inconsistent with most of the studies regularly cited here and elsewhere. E3b2 is consistently shown as the younger lineage of the two.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
See Arredi 2004 for the moot TRMCA.
quote: The TMRCAs for
E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
and E3b2 (2.8–8.2 KY)
should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of
53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001).
They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation ... and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004).
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
Doesn’t answer the question at hand, which was: By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
Notice that these datings are given with confidence intervals which shouldn’t be dismissed. Once taken into account, the age provided for E3b doesn’t deviate much from the general understanding that E3b originated in the Upper Paleolithic, in the vicinity of ca. 23 ky ago or so.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When read in context and quoted in full its the spread of "Berber" language that
started at Darfur
went west by northwest across the Sahara
then back east but to further north (slightly inland from the littoral)
This can easily be seen in the map accompanying Williamson. In it one can see "Berber" reaching the north of Egypt by two different routes.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
As for Northwest African expansion being older than East, implicated above by the back-migration eastward in this:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin.
^Would be inconsistent with this:
...
I’ve grasped the full context, but as cited in the extracts I posted, there is no evidence that coastal North East African Tamazight speakers are younger than those from west, which was implied in your original post, by way of migration from Saharan/sahel East Africa westward, and from thence, a westward movement, this time reaching coastal north east Africa. I haven’t seen any genetic evidence backing up such a scenario.
I’ll reply to the other posts later. I’ve got some business to take care of. Watch this space...
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^Refined, and more complete response of the above, is provided below, as follows...
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
See Arredi 2004 for the moot TRMCA.
quote: The TMRCAs for
E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
and E3b2 (2.8–8.2 KY)
should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of
53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001).
They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation ... and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004).
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
Arredi et al. have lower bound and upper bound expansion ages, each of which have their corresponding confidence intervals; these intervals are there, precisely because they need to be taken into account. Once taken into account, the age provided for E3b doesn’t deviate much from the general understanding that E3b originated in the Upper Paleolithic, and expanded northward within the vicinity of by ca. 24 ky ago or so.
The geographic and quantitative analyses of haplogroup and microsatellite diversity is strongly suggestive of a northeastern African origin of E-M78, with a corridor for bidirectional migrations between northeastern and eastern Africa (at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago), trans-Mediterranean migrations directly from northern Africa to Europe (mainly in the last 13.0 ky), and flow from northeastern Africa to western Asia between 20.0 and 6.8 ky ago.- Cruciani et al.
Heck M78, the derivative of M35, has expansion dates of 6ky ago or so [and older] in the “Near East”[ Semino et al. 2004, Cruciani et al. 2004, and Underhill et al.]. Naturally, M78 cannot be contemporaneous with its father lineage E-M35 in initial expansion ages - this understanding is consistently communicated in the bulk of genetic studies referenced herein.
Example:
“The subdivision of E-M78 in the six common major clades revealed a pronounced geographic structuring (table 1, fig. 2): Haplogroup E-V65 and the paragroups E-M78* and E-V12* were observed mainly in northern Africa, Haplogroup E-V13 was found in high frequencies in Europe, and Haplogroup E-V32 was observed at high frequencies only in eastern Africa. The only Haplogroup showing a wide geographic distribution was E-V22, relatively common in north-eastern and eastern Africa, but also found in Europe, western Asia, up to southern Asia (table 1, fig.2).”
“On the basis of robust phylogeographic considerations, an eastern African origin has been proposed for E-M215 (Underhill et al. 2001; Cruciani et al. 2004), with a coalescence time of 22.4ky (95% C.I. 20.9-23.9ky; recalculated from Cruciani et al. 2004, see Materials and Methods). A north-eastern African origin for Haplogroup E-M78 implies that E-M215 chromosomes were introduced in north-eastern Africa from eastern Africa in the Upper Paleolithic, between 23.9ky ago (the upper bound for E-M215 TMRCA in eastern Africa) and 17.3ky ago (the lower bound for E-M78 TMRCA here estimated, fig. 1). In turn, the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in north-eastern Africa. The nested arrangement of Haplogroups E-V12 and E-V32 defines an upper and lower bound for this episode, i.e. 18ky and 5.9ky, respectively. These were probably not massive migration/s, since the present high frequencies of E-V12 chromosomes in eastern Africa are entirely accounted for by E-V32, which most likely underwent subsequent geographically restricted demographic expansions involving well differentiated molecular types (fig. 3A). Conversely, the absense of E-V12* chromosomes in eastern Africa is compatible with loss by drift.” - Cruciani et al. 2007
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
As can be seen in the table a few posts above, Bosch makes E3b2-M81 out to be the youngest. And this is one of the discrepencies, along with the total disagreement between the four referenced geneticists on the involved TMRCAs, that led me to call it a "guessing game."
But there's more in Bosch 2001 contrary to the status quo here.
quote: Assuming a constant population size, an infinite-sites model, and population subdivision between NW Africa and Iberia,
we used Genetree (Griffiths and Tavare´1994) to estimate the age of M35 (giving H36) to be 53,000±21,000 years ago (ya), that of M78 (giving H35) to be 16,000±10,000 ya, and that of M81 (giving H38) to be 32,000±11,000 ya.
Under the more likely condition of population growth (Thomson et al. 2000), the respective estimated ages were 30,000±6,000 ya, _7,600±6,000 ya, and 19,000±4,000 ya.
Hence, the expansion that brought the ancestors of H35 and H38 (or even those haplotypes themselves) into NW Africa could have happened at any time after 30,000 ya, and, more specifically, it could have happened during the Upper Paleolithic.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ... most of the studies regularly cited here and elsewhere. E3b2 is consistently shown as the younger lineage of the two.
If Bosch et al. posit a younger age for M81 than that of E-M35 and E-M78, then this would be in agreement with many of the other cited sources, not in disagreement. As for the Bosch et al.'s supposed "Upper Paleolithic" extraction of "Berber" paternal lineages, I've already taken issue with that multiple times now, including in that thread you started about 'Tamazight language being Afrasan'. Outside of Bosch et al., I've rarely seen genetic studies posit an Upper Paleolithic expansion age for E-M81, as opposed to being of a Neolithic one.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
I don't get it. Can you please rephrase your question?
Meshwesh means the Meshwesh of AE record who moving from Tunisian/Libyan Syrtis forced every ethny along the way to join them as they marched on Egypt. Their movement was from west to east c.1250 just as I wrote.
Where are you getting a westward movement of Meshwesh from?
If by Meshwesh you are referring to coastal northwest African Tamazight groups, which study are you going by, regarding the westward movement and occurring in the said timeframe?
Technicality on my part. What I meant to ask was: What study are you going by, concerning the west-to-eastward movement of the Meshwesh, presuming that you are equating the Meshwesh with coastal northwest African Tamazight groups?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When read in context and quoted in full its the spread of "Berber" language that
started at Darfur
went west by northwest across the Sahara
then back east but to further north (slightly inland from the littoral)
This can easily be seen in the map accompanying Williamson. In it one can see "Berber" reaching the north of Egypt by two different routes.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
As for Northwest African expansion being older than East, implicated above by the back-migration eastward in this:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin.
^Would be inconsistent with this:
...
I’ve grasped the full context, but as cited in the genetic study extracts that I posted, there is no evidence that coastal North East African Tamazight speakers are younger than those from coastal North West Africa, which was implied in your original post, by way of migration from first Saharan/sahel East Africa in westward direction [and reaching coastal north west Africa], and from thereon an eastward movement occurred, reaching coastal north east Africa. For instance, when you said:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin -al Takruri
^This implies that there were no Tamazight speakers already inhabiting coastal northeast Africa, prior to the ‘eastward’ migration of coastal northwest African Tamazight speakers from west Africa [pending clarification to the contrary]. I haven’t seen any genetic evidence backing up such a scenario. Genetic evidence for such would demonstrate older expansion ages for west African Tamazight groups than those in coastal Northeast Africa; however to date, I’ve seen genetic evidence to the contrary.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Sure it answered the question, and quite fully, with a direct quote straight from Arredi who issued it.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
See Arredi 2004 for the moot TRMCA. [QUOTE] The TMRCAs for
E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
and E3b2 (2.8–8.2 KY)
should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of
53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001).
They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation ... and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004).
Doesn’t answer the question at hand, which was: By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Actually the highest CI figure in Arredi only goes back 19,300 years. Arredi is really loose with the TMRCAs
quote: E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
E3b M35 226 8.26 (5.18–12.37) 14.33 (9.32–19.19)
Taking both generation sets into consideration it's anywhere from 5,200 years ago to 19,300 years ago but the 23,000 year figure is out of Arredi's range.
code:
Table 2 TMRCA Estimates and 95% CIs of Y-Chromosomal Lineages in North Africa ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TMRCA [IN KY] (95% CI) -------------------------------------- SAMPLED NO. OF 30 Years/ 25 Years/ LINEAGES MUTATION CHROMOSOMES Generation) Generation) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- . E3b M35 226 8.26 (5.18–12.37) 14.33 (9.32–19.19) E3b1 M78 38 4.48 (3.01–6.16) 8.10 (5.42–10.71) E3b2 M81 165 4.15 (2.84–5.97) 6.90 (5.91–8.19)
If we can back up from this tree and look at the forrest, the point I'm making is that there's no general agreement on these TMRCAs between Bosch, Arredi, Cruciani, and Semino. Most certainly not so for a 23,000 year ago date for E3b.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Notice that these datings are given with confidence intervals which shouldn’t be dismissed. Once taken into account, the age provided for E3b doesn’t deviate much from the general understanding that E3b originated in the Upper Paleolithic, in the vicinity of ca. 23 ky ago or so.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Most high caste Tuaregs would not mix with enslaved populations bvecause of the strict matrilineal sucession. The Tuaregs mixing with Arabs is definately out of the question considering that Tuaregs put up fierce resistance against the Arabs.
There is a policy that often masks tribal social ecology because we that that Taureg integration of other groups depends on the area/location and perhaps socioeconomic reality. In modern parlance the slave master may hates his slaves but through his power he can choose any female slave he wishes, as long as the madam (wife) doesn't figure it out! The master will not say I hav a right to my female slaves because that would upset the social economy so he says the opposite knowing he can command as he wishes! Look at the Janjaweed talk about the 'abid' as their inferiors but the first thing they do is rape! OR the Hemmings/Jefferson controversy and most recently the Strom Thurmond affair!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Sure it answered the question, and quite fully, with a direct quote straight from Arredi who issued it.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
See Arredi 2004 for the moot TRMCA.
quote: The TMRCAs for
E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
and E3b2 (2.8–8.2 KY)
should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of
53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001).
They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation ... and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004).
Doesn’t answer the question at hand, which was: By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
In which case, your initial post placing E3b-M35 to just 8ky ago was misleading, because even your citation of Arredi et al. gives both lower bound and upper bound expansion estimations along with their corresponding CIs, and when the CIs are taken into consideration, the upper bound expansion age falls in the general reach of the Upper Paleolithic as is the case with the dates provided by Semino et al., Luis et al, Cruciani et al. and Underhill et al, with a give-or-take so many years of the dates provided by the said researchers - all dating back to the upper Paleolithic, as opposed to the impression given by your initial post of a Neolithic timeframe.
Example 1:
The TMRCAs for E3b (8.3 KY, 95% CI 5.2 to 12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3 to 19.3 KY; table 2) and E3b2 (2.8 to 8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of 53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001). They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation (intermediate between M35 and M96 in the phylogeny; see fig. 1A) and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004). - Arredi et al. 2004
Example2:
We obtained an estimate of 25.6 thousand years (ky) (95% CI 24.3 to 27.4 ky) for the TMRCA of the 509 haplogroup E3b chromosomes, which is close to the 30 ± 6 ky estimate for the age of the M35 mutation reported by Bosch et al. (2001) using a different method. Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b - that is, it had (1) the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1), (2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally, (3) the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup. - Cruciani et al. 2004
Example 3: A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al. 2001b). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the much larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus Oman (0.5 versus 0.14; table 3). Consistent with the NRY data is the mtDNA expansion estimate of 10 to 20 ky ago for the East African M1 clade. Local expansions of this clade and subsequent demic movements may have resulted in the irregular presence of the M1 haplogroup in the Mediterranean area (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999). - Luis et al. 2004
^ Naturally the expansion ages of 10 to 20 ky provided by Luis et al. herein, correspond with E-M78 lineages, since ancestral E3b lineages have rarely been found in Northeast Africa [Egypt in this case] as opposed to sub-Saharan East Africa.
Example 4:
The M35 estimate is in agreement with those of Bosch et al. (2001) and Cruciani et al. (2004 [in this issue]), obtained with different methods. - Semino et al. 2004
Semino et al., Underhill et al, and Cruciani et al. have relatively more closer TMRCA ages for E3b [and in turn relatively closer to Bosch et al.’s date for E3b-M35, but produced relatively closer TMRCA ages for E-M81 to Arredi et al. than Bosch et al.] than Arredi et al., but it is also of note that, while these researchers had study sub-Saharan groups in their dating estimations, Arredi et al. in their 2004 publication directly studied only the more Northern African groups; Bosch et al. 2001 started largely coastal North Africans :
To provide a more complete description of the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation, we have analyzed five additional populations: Algerian Arabs, Algerian Berbers, Tunisians, and North and South Egyptians (table 1)…
In addition, samples from southern Europe, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa were included in some analyses (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). - Arredi et al. 2004
Given that these aforementioned researchers did relatively more detailed population genetics analysis on E3b macro-haplogroup than Arredi et al. 2004 [and Bosch et al. 2001], they have an edge over the latter. Arredi et al.’s age estimation for E3b would be a reflection of their analysis of Northeast and Northwest African derivatives of E3b, notwithstanding adopting methodology from other researchers like Zhivotovsky et al. 2004 in the ‘effective mutation rate’.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Actually the highest CI figure in Arredi only goes back 19,300 years. Arredi is really loose with the TMRCAs
quote: E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
E3b M35 226 8.26 (5.18–12.37) 14.33 (9.32–19.19)
Taking both generation sets into consideration it's anywhere from 5,200 years ago to 19,300 years ago but the 23,000 year figure is out of Arredi's range.
Table 2 TMRCA Estimates and 95% CIs of Y-Chromosomal Lineages in North Africa
The 23 ky ago so was estimation based on Cruciani et al. [actually reflecting upper bound expansion of E3b1], who had actually done more extensive sampling on and 'combing' of E3b chromosomes than Arredi et al. Arredi et al. base their calculations on the dating methods by following researchers:
The TMRCA of haplogroup E3b2 was estimated to be ~ 4.2 KY (95% CI 2.8 to 6.0 KY), using the mutation rate measured in father-son pairs (Kayser et al. 2000) and assuming 30 years per generation, or 6.9 (5.9 to 8.2) KY using the deduced "effective" mutation rate calibrated by historical events (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004) (table 2).
a The two parameters describing the population growth (alpha and beta) have been set as alpha prior uniform (0.03, 0.05) and beta prior uniform (0.10, 0.20), the microsatellite mutation rates used were from Weale et al. (2001) or gamma (2,1000) for the loci for which published estimates of mutation rates were not available.
b The two parameters describing the population growth (alpha and beta) have been set as in footnote a, the microsatellite mutation rate used was from Zhivotovsky et al. (2004). - Arredi et al. 2004
…and were apparently not the only researchers to adopt the methodology utilized by Zhivotovsky et al., since Cruciani et al. 2007 too employed the following methodology:
And again from Cruciani et al., we have:
To estimate the time TMRCA of haplogroups we used the seven tetra nucleotide loci and applied the average square distance (ASD) method (Goldstein et al. 1995), where the ancestral Haplotype was assumed to be the Haplotype carrying the most frequent allele at each micro satellite locus. We employed a micro satellite evolutionarily effective mutation rate (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004). However, since the loci used here and those used by Zhivotovsky et al. (2004) do not overlap completely, we calculated the micro satellite mutation rate as follows: we obtained the mean and standard deviation of the father-to-son mutation rates reported by Gusmao et al. (2005) for the same loci here used, and reduced them by a factor 3.6 [i.e. the discrepancy between the rate estimate obtained from population data and that obtained from father-to-son transmissions (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004)]. This resulted in an evolutionarily effective rate w=7.9 x 10^-4 (SD=5.7x10^-4), a figure that was also used in recalculating the E-M215 coalescence age (data from Cruciani et al. 2004). Recently, Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman (2006), showed that reduced loss of diversity in an expanding population brings the evolutionarily effective rate closer to the germ-line rate than in constant-size populations. Thus, in the case of expanding populations, we used a correction of the 7.9 x 10^-4 value, that was calculated as follows. With reference to fig. 2 in Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman (2006), the values of accumulated variance in 200-300 generations for the scenarios of 1)a single rate for exponential population growth and 2) growth with four distinct consecutive rates, were compared with the amount accumulated in constant size populations. This resulted in evolutionarily effective mutation rates decreased of factors 2.4 and 2.8 respectively (instead of 3.6), that is 11.9 x 10^-4 (SD = 8.5 x 10^-4 and 10.2 x 10^-4 (SD = 7.3 x 10^-4), which were applied to Haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 found in Europe. C.I.s for the ASD (and TMRCA) were obtained as follows: mutations on the micro satellite genealogy were simulated using a Poisson process, in which the total number of mutational events was calculated based on branch length and assuming that mutations at each micro satellite were gamma-distributed with mean and standard deviation calculated as above. Each mutation increased or decreased allele length by one step (each with probability 0.5). ASD was then evaluated for the simulated data and the whole process repeated 1000 times, to quote the central 95% values. This method represents a refinement of that by Thomas et al. (1998) and Scozzari et al. (2001), as it also takes into account heterogeneity of mutation rates across loci. And independent dating method (rho statistics; Forster et al. 1996 et al. 1996; Saillard et al. 2000) was also used to assay how robust the time obtained is to choice of method.
Both dating procedures rely on the appropriate choice of a Haplotype to be considered ancestral, which remains an uncontrolled source of uncertainty. We observe that the rho-based ages are slightly younger than the ASD-based ones (fig. 1). The difference is significant only for the root of the entire Haplogroup, this being attributable to the relevant departure from a star-like structure because of repeated founder effects (Saillard et al. 2000). Only values obtained from ASD are quoted in the text. Haplogroup diversity and its sampling variance were estimated as in Arlequin 3 (Excoffier, LAVal and Schneider 2005). - Cruciani et al. 2007
quote:Originally posted by al Takruri:
If we can back up from this tree and look at the forrest, the point I'm making is that there's no general agreement on these TMRCAs between Bosch, Arredi, Cruciani, and Semino. Most certainly not so for a 23,000 year ago date for E3b.
quote: Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Notice that these datings are given with confidence intervals which shouldn’t be dismissed. Once taken into account, the age provided for E3b doesn’t deviate much from the general understanding that E3b originated in the Upper Paleolithic, in the vicinity of ca. 23 ky ago or so.
Subtlety of language can make quite a difference: For instance, in my posted cited, there’s “in the vicinity of" and “or so”; therefore, the claim about the findings of all the said researchers’ fitting the 23 ky ago date specifically, is but a smokescreen. Furthermore, in my post, it was mentioned “E3b originated in the upper Paleolithic”, which undoubtedly contradicts the date you focused on in your post - that is, the 8 ky ago figure.
As you have read in the words right from the very authors that you cited, there is a “general” agreement between them with respect to the other researchers they‘ve cited. See the topmost postings of this entire post, in the ‘examples’ provided for this.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Go back, slow down, and take another look at the figures I posted. Makes me wonder how it engendered such a response.
The figures I use from Arredi say that E3b-M35 is older than E3b1-M78. So far I've seen no one make any statement that their initial expansion ages were contemporaneous. Looks like something made up and put down by yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Heck M78, the derivative of M35, has expansion dates of 6ky ago or so [and older] in the “Near East”[ Semino et al. 2004, Cruciani et al. 2004, and Underhill et al.]. Naturally, M78 cannot be contemporaneous with its father lineage E-M35 in initial expansion ages - this understanding is consistently communicated in the bulk of genetic studies referenced herein.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
No. The other sources in my Guessing Game NA NRY Marker TMRCAs table -- namely: Arredi, Cruciani, and Semino -- all do very explicitly disagree with Bosch over E3b2-M81 "youth" compared to E3b1-M78.
Again, buttressing my point that the ages of the markers is an 'educated guess' between the geneticists. Take your pick, or, judiciously draw your own conclusions (as you have already done).
I chose Arredi's genetics to dovetail with Williamson's linquistics. They fit hand in glove. The others' gloves are the kind the Cochran firm would love.
But I invite the use of any other geneticist than Arredi and any other linguist than P. Behren whose figures are really within the same near hit range of each other in explanation of both the genetic expansion of North African markers and lingual spread of the "Berber" language.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: If Bosch et al. posit a younger age for M81 than that of E-M35 and E-M78, then this would be in agreement with many of the other cited sources, not in disagreement. As for the Bosch et al.'s supposed "Upper Paleolithic" extraction of "Berber" paternal lineages, I've already taken issue with that multiple times now, including in that thread you started about 'Tamazight language being Afrasan'. Outside of Bosch et al., I've rarely seen genetic studies posit an Upper Paleolithic expansion age for E-M81, as opposed to being of a Neolithic one.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
No. It implies there were no proto-North "Berber" derived languages in coastal northeast Africa not that there were no "Berber" speakers at all already there.
It's not age of the speakers it's the age of the speech. The youth of a language can belie the hoariness of its speakers genetics.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
there is no evidence that coastal North East African Tamazight speakers are younger than those from coastal North West Africa, which was implied in your original post, by way of migration from first Saharan/sahel East Africa in westward direction [and reaching coastal north west Africa], and from thereon an eastward movement occurred, reaching coastal north east Africa. For instance, when you said:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin -al Takruri
^This implies that there were no Tamazight speakers already inhabiting coastal northeast Africa, prior to the ‘eastward’ migration of coastal northwest African Tamazight speakers from west Africa [pending clarification to the contrary]. I haven’t seen any genetic evidence backing up such a scenario. Genetic evidence for such would demonstrate older expansion ages for west African Tamazight groups than those in coastal Northeast Africa; however to date, I’ve seen genetic evidence to the contrary.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
From me somewhere around March of 2006: The Africans and Europeans of Crete were of one culture and people. The founding culture was North African but the population hailed from other Aegean islands, the Pelopenese mainland, and the Levant as well. Africans were not the majority. The majority population was the unique comingling that produced the disctinct Minoans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Takruri, I thought that the idea of predominantly black male Cretans was your idea. Crete was initially settled by North Africans and then peoples from Western Asia (the Levant and Asia Minor). What is your premise?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
RE: the post of 12 June, 2007 05:56 PM
You fail to tabulize the various geneticist and blur them all together not differentiating when one is citing another making it appear one is postulating the same date as te other.
I've sufficiently shown by direct citation of figures without interjection that there is a wide spread and most obvious disagreement in the dates for M35, M78, & M81.
Besides the raw dates, the text I posted shows you there is no agreement "general" or otherwise as to the North African marker NRY TMRCAs.
Even you recognize the contradiction but only when you want to make an unscholarly non-academic barb and introduce descriptors like "smokescreen" which ends my responsa to you on this subject due to your lack of respect which, judging by past performance, is bound to escalate the more you are shown to be in error.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: RE: the post of 12 June, 2007 05:56 PM
You fail to tabulize the various geneticist and blur them all together not differentiating when one is citing another making it appear one is postulating the same date as te other.
You have failed to read my last post, which specifically 'cites' the various geneticists in question, who have noted in their own very words, that were in 'general' agreement with a few or the other geneticists that you cited but proclaimed as having 'no' general agreement. Their statement contradicts yours.
quote:al Takruri:
I've sufficiently shown by direct citation of figures without interjection that there is a wide spread and most obvious disagreement in the dates for M35, M78, & M81.
I've provided specific citations from the very same authors you mentioned, where they proclaim to be in 'general' agreement with the other. See my last post before this one, which you never replied or read, judging from your empty charge that I haven't produced any.
quote:al Takruri:
Besides the raw dates, the text I posted shows you there is no agreement "general" or otherwise as to the North African marker NRY TMRCAs.
See above.
quote:al Takruri:
Even you recognize the contradiction but only when
Unspecific - please specify with citation?
quote:al Takruri:
you want to make an unscholarly non-academic barb
Citation?
quote:al Takruri:
and introduce descriptors like "smokescreen" which ends my responsa to you on this subject due to your lack of respect which, judging by past performance
I guess I could have used 'red herring' or 'non-sequitur', which would have appropriately described your tendency to talk about something which wasn't said or an issue to begin with.
quote:al Takruri:
is bound to escalate the more you are shown to be in error.
Error - citation? You've posted much, but you haven't said much.
I'll deal with the rest of your posts later.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:thee various geneticists in question, who have noted in their own very words, that were in 'general' agreement
Yes, there is a general concensus on the datation of E3b, E3b1 and E3b2.
Just citing different studies done at different times with different dates may in fact only be showing different levels of knowledge, and different degrees of specificity.
If there is a real dispute, it should be stated as such in peer review, a great and pertinent example follows from Keita, concerning the origin, and labeling [but not the datation] of haplotypes associated with E3b1 and E3b2:
It is important to address the appellation of "Arabic" for haplotype V, due to names being interpreted as indicators of origins, and the inconsistencies found in the literature. This variant is found in very high frequencies [End Page 224] in supra-Saharan countries and Mauretania (collective average 55.0%), and in Ethiopia (average 45.8%) (Table 2A). In specific groups its highest prevalence is in samples from Moroccan Amazigh (Berbers) (68.9%) and Ethiopian Falasha (60.5%). Its frequency is considerably less in the Near East, and decreases from west (Lebanon, 16.7%) to east (Iraq, 7.2%) (Table 2A). The label "Arabic" for V is therefore misleading because it suggests a Near Eastern origin. In fact this variant has been called "African" (Lucotte et al. 1993:839, Lucotte et al. 1996:469), and "Berberian" (Lucotte et al. 2001:887).
Keita also makes mention of earlier likely erroneous estimates by Bosch:
The caveat to the above scenario is that if the M35 mutation is a lot older—50,000 years in one unlikely scenario considered by Bosch et al (2001), then it may have originally reached northwest Africa at an earlier time; this would not, of course, negate later migrations http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/history_in_africa/v032/32.1keita.html Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Keita continues:
The widespread distribution of the PN2 clade in the major language phyla of Africa, its existence in the Levantine-Iraq region and even in the Aegean, and its likely post-glacial maximum date are significant and show how numerous bioculturally diverse peoples can be connected, even at relatively shallow time depths. This should give pause to those who have trouble escaping racial thinking. The diversification and early expansion of PN2 bearing populations likely started in the northeast quadrant of Africa (defined by bisecting the continent along its north-south axis and at the equator). This region is postulated to be the ancestral home of two of the three major language phyla of supra-equatorial Africa: Nilosaharan and Afroasiatic (Blench 1993, Ehret 1984, personal communication).
It is significant that bearers of the PN2 mutation are geographically widespread and diverse in external morphology and language family affiliation. There is also biological diversity even within the speakers of language families (in their "homelands") that could be seen by some as problematic. The range of external morphologies in the continental African speakers of Afroasiatic cannot be viewed as problematic from an evolutionary [End Page 229] (versus racio-typological) perspective, and indicates the richness and complexity of indigenous African biocultural microevolution and its diversity (Hiernaux 1974, Keita and Kittles 1997, Kittles and Keita 1999).
^ I almost feel sorry for anthropology 'students' who can't deal with the post DNA revolution, and attempt to seek shelter in the now laughable legacy of Blumenbach and Carelton Coon.
Again from Keita:
Conceptual racio-typological approaches that only interpret variation in terms of the interaction of primordial pre-existing distinct biocultural units will not easily explain phenomena like the PN2 distribution.
^ This is summation of recent debate on ES concerning both Berber and Afro-Asiatic.
Who can grow and learn?
Who is stuck repeating the dead end race-ideologies of Eurocentrists?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Go back, slow down, and take another look at the figures I posted. Makes me wonder how it engendered such a response.
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture. - al Takruri
^This was the point of inquiry, as to whether the date reflected E3b2 or E-M35, and you implied it was reflecting the latter [via Arredi et al.] in a follow up to the question. That is what the following response is addressing:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Heck M78, the derivative of M35, has expansion dates of 6ky ago or so [and older] in the “Near East”[ Semino et al. 2004, Cruciani et al. 2004, and Underhill et al.]. Naturally, M78 cannot be contemporaneous with its father lineage E-M35 in initial expansion ages - this understanding is consistently communicated in the bulk of genetic studies referenced herein.
quote: al Takruri:
The figures I use from Arredi say that E3b-M35 is older than E3b1-M78.
If you place E3b TMRCA age in ~ 6300 BCE, this would essentially make it contemporaneous with its offspring E3b1, which has been noted to have expansion ages within that vicinity, and even older.
quote:al Takruri: So far I've seen no one make any statement that their initial expansion ages were contemporaneous. Looks like something made up and put down by yourself.
The keywords in your statement is “looks like” according to yourself, but reality says that “it ins’t” what you think it looks like, it is the contrary of that. The TMCA date you attributed to E-M35 is highlighted above for everyone to see.
quote:al Takruri:
I chose Arredi's genetics to dovetail with Williamson's linquistics. They fit hand in glove. The others' gloves are the kind the Cochran firm would love.
…but, as I said in my last post, your sole focus on Arredi et al.’s lower bound expansion age estimation for E-M35, is misleading, because they do provide the upper bound TMRCA as well. This is why I asked the question pertaining to your dating, whether it was in reference to E-M81 or E-M35.
quote:al Takruri:
But I invite the use of any other geneticist than Arredi and any other linguist than P. Behren whose figures are really within the same near hit range of each other in explanation of both the genetic expansion of North African markers and lingual spread of the "Berber" language.
Yes, the said 8 ky ago upper bound expansion age estimation of “Proto-Berber” speaker(s) approximates the date provided by Semino et al., and specifically in reference to E-M81, as opposed to your selection of Arredi et al.’s lower bound estimation expansion age for E3b-M35 chromosomes, which as I said, from Arredi et al.’s work in question, is reflective of their analysis of mainly derivative E3b lineages in northeast Africa, the places they directly studied.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
No. It implies there were no proto-North "Berber" derived languages in coastal northeast Africa not that there were no "Berber" speakers at all already there.
It's not age of the speakers it's the age of the speech. The youth of a language can belie the hoariness of its speakers genetics.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
there is no evidence that coastal North East African Tamazight speakers are younger than those from coastal North West Africa, which was implied in your original post, by way of migration from first Saharan/sahel East Africa in westward direction [and reaching coastal north west Africa], and from thereon an eastward movement occurred, reaching coastal north east Africa. For instance, when you said:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin -al Takruri
^This implies that there were no Tamazight speakers already inhabiting coastal northeast Africa, prior to the ‘eastward’ migration of coastal northwest African Tamazight speakers from west Africa [pending clarification to the contrary]. I haven’t seen any genetic evidence backing up such a scenario. Genetic evidence for such would demonstrate older expansion ages for west African Tamazight groups than those in coastal Northeast Africa; however to date, I’ve seen genetic evidence to the contrary.
Please clarify your statement: Are you saying that “there were ‘Berber’ speakers already living there’, but yet that there were no ‘proto-North Berber” derived speakers in coastal northeast Africa prior to the eastward movement of Tamazight/“Berber” speakers from west Africa?
Pending your clarification of the above, if the coastal Northeast African Tamazight/“Berber” groups’ language didn’t derive from “proto-Berber” language, then what? They certainly have older expansion age estimations for the characteristic “Berber” expansion lineage of E-M81 than northwest African Tamazight speakers based on published genetic material.
Ps - Please make sure you read the most up-do-date post as well, pertaining to the matter at hand, before making avoidably-invalid charges about 'no' research publication citations having been provided for your reading. If you don't bother reading and/or pay attention to something, how are you supposed to know if it is there or not?!
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:thee various geneticists in question, who have noted in their own very words, that were in 'general' agreement
Yes, there is a general concensus on the datation of E3b, E3b1 and E3b2.
Just citing different studies done at different times with different dates may in fact only be showing different levels of knowledge, and different degrees of specificity.
If there is a real dispute, it should be stated as such in peer review, a great and pertinent example follows from Keita, concerning the origin, and labeling [but not the datation] of haplotypes associated with E3b1 and E3b2:
It is important to address the appellation of "Arabic" for haplotype V, due to names being interpreted as indicators of origins, and the inconsistencies found in the literature. This variant is found in very high frequencies [End Page 224] in supra-Saharan countries and Mauretania (collective average 55.0%), and in Ethiopia (average 45.8%) (Table 2A). In specific groups its highest prevalence is in samples from Moroccan Amazigh (Berbers) (68.9%) and Ethiopian Falasha (60.5%). Its frequency is considerably less in the Near East, and decreases from west (Lebanon, 16.7%) to east (Iraq, 7.2%) (Table 2A). The label "Arabic" for V is therefore misleading because it suggests a Near Eastern origin. In fact this variant has been called "African" (Lucotte et al. 1993:839, Lucotte et al. 1996:469), and "Berberian" (Lucotte et al. 2001:887).
Keita also makes mention of earlier likely erroneous estimates by Bosch:
The caveat to the above scenario is that if the M35 mutation is a lot older—50,000 years in one unlikely scenario considered by Bosch et al (2001), then it may have originally reached northwest Africa at an earlier time; this would not, of course, negate later migrations http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/history_in_africa/v032/32.1keita.html
Indeed.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by yazid904:
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Most high caste Tuaregs would not mix with enslaved populations bvecause of the strict matrilineal sucession. The Tuaregs mixing with Arabs is definately out of the question considering that Tuaregs put up fierce resistance against the Arabs.
There is a policy that often masks tribal social ecology because we that that Taureg integration of other groups depends on the area/location and perhaps socioeconomic reality. In modern parlance the slave master may hates his slaves but through his power he can choose any female slave he wishes, as long as the madam (wife) doesn't figure it out! The master will not say I hav a right to my female slaves because that would upset the social economy so he says the opposite knowing he can command as he wishes! Look at the Janjaweed talk about the 'abid' as their inferiors but the first thing they do is rape! OR the Hemmings/Jefferson controversy and most recently the Strom Thurmond affair!
But Yazid, what does any of what you say have to do with Ausar's claim? The Janjaweed are Arabized (Arab-crazed) people who hate and deny their black African identity and so target their kinsmen who don't. Thomas Jefferson like many white males of his day in America were still racist and still thought blacks were inferior. Non of this has to do with the simple fact in Tuareg society that the high clans do not mix with slaves not because of racial or even racist reasons but for simple class/status reasons. Or that it has nothing to do with the fact that the high clans are matrilineal- descent is reckoned through the mother and not the father.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
quote:But Yazid, what does any of what you say have to do with Ausar's claim? The Janjaweed are Arabized (Arab-crazed) people who hate and deny their black African identity and so target their kinsmen who don't. Thomas Jefferson like many white males of his day in America were still racist and still thought blacks were inferior. Non of this has to do with the simple fact in Tuareg society that the high clans do not mix with slaves not because of racial or even racist reasons but for simple class/status reasons. Or that it has nothing to do with the fact that the high clans are matrilineal- descent is reckoned through the mother and not the father.
In no way, shape or manner have I mentioned race! All I say is that despite that societal admonition, the contact is there but it is not acknowledged. I use Strom Thurmond because he was recent. During the day he was spouting the party line and at night he was doing his 'thang' but despite that, he acknowledge his ways and took care of his offspring to the best way he could so as not to offend his brethren. One can have a child by abid but it is treated like a dog while the main wife is kept like a wife! One can have his cake and eat it! I realize it is status but there are many exceptions.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Can you please tell me how a consensus can have so much variance? When I looked at Luis' figures I found yet another set of dates to add to the geneticists whose figures I've already posted.
I'm continuing compiling data for a table much more complete than the one I hastil drew up which wasn't as specific as I wanted it to be.
Never should've let myself chase after comments on it to start with (but the figures are accurate and wide ranging).
One reason the figures differ is due to the precise populations used to arrive at them.
Semino 2004 uses a berth of populations.
So does Cruciani 2004 and he gives an overall date for M78 then gives dates for each of his clusters (alpha, beta, gamma, delta).
Bosch 2001 used Moroccan and Saharawi populations.
Arredi's 2004 sampled populations included Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt.
Luis 2004 has (for continental Africa) only Egyptian samples samples
The poles of confidence intervals may only represent at best a slight handful out of hundreds of samples. The date preceding the CI presents the point consistent with the preponderance of the samples and is why in works likes Wells' book he dispenses with CIs (and I notice posters here often enough dispense with them too).
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:thee various geneticists in question, who have noted in their own very words, that were in 'general' agreement
Yes, there is a general concensus on the datation of E3b, E3b1 and E3b2.
Just citing different studies done at different times with different dates may in fact only be showing different levels of knowledge, and different degrees of specificity.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Can you please tell me how a consensus can have so much variance?
Rasol has done what you chose not to do:
He actually bothered to read the extracts [and likely the full studies of the extracts] I posted, wherein the researchers in their very own words, proclaim to be in 'general' agreement with the other group, while taking into consideration the deviations born out of contexts in which respective studies were conducted, particularly in terms of sampling range and diversity, and the methodology utilized in dating chromosomal haplotypes, which have naturally gotten better with newer studies conducted than older ones [as I have exemplified in the Cruciani extract in the post that you chose not to read].
quote:al Takruri:
Never should've let myself chase after comments on it to start with (but the figures are accurate and wide ranging).
Hence, your comments shall remain questionable and unsubstantiated. Not sure how that helps you.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Where in these figures, posted at least twice already, is M35 contemporaneous with its offspring? If anything, its the offspring who are contemporaries by Arredi.
Only by mixing the Arredi M35 date with that of some other geneticist's M78 or M81 dates could one arrive at their own conclusion that the father is no older than the son. My post certainly did no such thing.
quote:posted 10 June, 2007 07:38 AM . . . .
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE) moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
. . . .
* NRY data - Arredi 2004, Table 2
So that's just making an argument for the sake of arguing since nothing I posted leads to any such thought.
Where I may've gone wrong is the movement back eastward. Linguistics posits it but I may have inaccurately recalled geneticists doing so.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Where in these figures, posted at least twice already, is M35 contemporaneous with its offspring? If anything, its the offspring who are contemporaries by Arredi.
1)Wherein in your post, was Arredi et al.'s upper bound E-M35 mentioned?
2) Wherein Arredi et al.'s post do the suggest that E-M35 TMRCA is ~ 6300 BC, with the implication that an upperbound TMRCA hasn't been provided?
3)Wherein Arredi et al.'s post, have they studied ancestral E3b-M35?
Only by mixing the Arredi M35 date with that of some other geneticist's M78 or M81 dates could one arrive at their own conclusion that the father is no older than the son. My post certainly did no such thing.
Goes back to this:
3)Wherein Arredi et al.'s post, have they studied ancestral E3b-M35?
If you can answer this question, perhaps you'll also understand the context of the answer given to you earlier, where you got the idea that your claim would make "E3b-M35 contemporaneous with its offspring".
quote:al Takruri:
quote:Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE)
Lacks context: which geneticist's and what study? As I told you earlier, and likely so that you hadn't bothered reading, Semino et al. provide TMRCA age estimation that comes close to the said 8ky ago timeframe. Semino et al. said this specifically in reference to E-M81, while you on the other hand, chose to focus on Arredi et al.'s lower bound estimation of E3b-M35 chromosomes, the 'ancestral lineages' of which they never actually studied.
quote:al Takruri: moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
So that's just making an argument for the sake of arguing since nothing I posted leads to any such thought.
Where I may've gone wrong is the movement back eastward. Linguistics posits it but I may have inaccurately recalled geneticists doing so.
You have yet to clarify this statement:
This implies that there were no Tamazight speakers already inhabiting coastal northeast Africa, prior to the ‘eastward’ migration of coastal northwest African Tamazight speakers from west Africa [pending clarification to the contrary]. I haven’t seen any genetic evidence backing up such a scenario. Genetic evidence for such would demonstrate older expansion ages for west African Tamazight groups than those in coastal Northeast Africa; however to date, I’ve seen genetic evidence to the contrary. - al Takruri
^To which I asked:
Please clarify your statement: Are you saying that “there were ‘Berber’ speakers already living there’, but yet that there were no ‘proto-North Berber” derived speakers in coastal northeast Africa prior to the eastward movement of Tamazight/“Berber” speakers from west Africa?
Pending your clarification of the above, if the coastal Northeast African Tamazight/“Berber” groups’ language didn’t derive from “proto-Berber” language, then what? They certainly have older expansion age estimations for the characteristic “Berber” expansion lineage of E-M81 than northwest African Tamazight speakers based on published genetic material. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Can you please tell me how a consensus can have so much variance?
You didn't show any great variance of current opinion, over any specific.
I can site Underhill, Cruciani, Arredi, Louis and Nebal, on the Neolithic derivition of M-81 from M-35 parent lineage.
I can't name any geneticist who disputes this.
Can you?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Wherein in your post, was Arredi et al.'s upper bound E-M35 mentioned?
Whether dealing with molecular or any other method of datation, upper and lower bound estimates can be more specific or less so, depending on method of dating and quality of data sample - which by definition will be different with each study.
If scientist #1 states based on his data that X occured between 1000 to 2000 years ago, and scientist #2 states that same X occured between 1000 and 5000 years ago, they do not necessarily contradict each other.
One has produced a more specific result than the other.
Note: No comment per se is made for the accuracy of the more specific result - if the scientist did shoddy work than the more specific result might be completely wrong.
The only point denoted here is that it isn't reasonable to expect every study producing and upper and lower bound date to show the same the number.
In fact, it would be odd if they did.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Wherein in your post, was Arredi et al.'s upper bound E-M35 mentioned?
Whether dealing with molecular or any other method of datation, upper and lower bound estimates can be more specific or less so, depending on method of dating and quality of data sample - which by definition will be different with each study.
and hence, goes along with the understanding, as noted earlier,...
...I posted, wherein the researchers in their very own words, proclaim to be in 'general' agreement with the other group, while taking into consideration the deviations born out of contexts in which respective studies were conducted, particularly in terms of sampling range and diversity, and the methodology utilized in dating chromosomal haplotypes, which have naturally gotten better with newer studies conducted than older ones [as I have exemplified in the Cruciani extract in the post that you chose not to read].
Arredi et al.'s estimations for E3b-M35 has to be assessed within the estimation boundaries provided, i.e. both lower and upper, to glean anything meaningful from the dating, because it is almost consistently maintianed in well known genetic publications, as cited in this board and elsewhere, that E3b-M35 is of upper Paleolithic extraction. So, when someone just cites only a piece of a bigger picture that suggests otherwise about E3b-M35, the idea generated from this amongst sections of well-meaning but relatively less-read folks where population genetics is concerned, can be misleading.
On an additional note:
Fact is, Arredi et al.'s 2004 dating estimations are largely reflective of mutational rate estimations of derivative E3b-M35 chromosomes of the Northernmost African populations they actually studied, rather than the more older M35 chromosomes [perhaps presenting themselves as an undifferentiated paragroup] found in the more southerly regions of the continent. Any further guesswork about the age of E3b-M35 by Arredi et al. would have to most certainly be based on studies that have actually analyzed these older chromosomes, not to mention the much broader spectrum of the M35 macro-haplogroup. To this end, it doesn't appear to be of any coincidence that Semino et al., Underhill et al., or Cruciani et al.'s estimations fall relatively much more closely within the same general ranges when it comes to E3b-M35, and its derivatives like E-M78 and E-M81, respectively, than they do vis-à-vis estimations by other researchers who had either not done as extensive a study on E3b-M35 chromosomes as the former, or utilized dating methods that had more recently given way to better approaches to attaining relative precision.
If there is a better fit for genetic citation, as far as Tamazight movement is concerned, Semino et al.'s estimation specifically for E-M81, rather than the ambiguous half-citation [not to mention out-of-context citation] of Arredi et al.'s estimation for E3b-M35 chromosome expansions, would be an appropriate exemplary one.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Why are you saying I didn't post a table showing a variety of TMRCAs for the three markers NA markers
E3b-M35 E3b1-M78 E3b2-M81
from four different geneticists?
In fact I've posted that data more than once and do so again right now rather than send anyone upscrolling:
code:
E3b M35 M78 M81
EA 25.6 - EA 23.2 ?? 5.6 Cruciani 2004 EA 30 7.6 19 Bosch 2001 (low end figures 8.26 4.48 4.15 Arredi 2004 EA 29.2 EA 14.9 8.6 Semino 2004
The paleolithic/neolithic thing isn't my argument and I don't appreciate trying to make it so. It's the opinion of Bosch 2001 and was referenced as evidence showing there are differences of opinion.
Do you have her recanting her decision in any later report of hers as team leader or member of some other geneticists team? If not then I take it she stands by her 2001 findings and publication.
Again my point is that geneticists differ on the TMRCAs of the NA markers and choosing Arredi's dates was supportive of the map based on Behrens in Willamson's article out of Vogel's book .
Whether anyone accepts it or not has no bearing on its valdity. For those who don't like it I invite you to use whichever geneticists' TMRCAs you prefer and any linguists' material whose dates for proto-"Berber" and its branches matches it.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I see you refuse to answer my question and substitute questions for lack of answers.
Wherein in your post was any CI given for you 24kya figure?
I've already explained the CI is not the gist of the date because very few if more than one of the samples will have either CI extreme.
The main date on the otherhand will have the preponderance of samples within close range of it.
And until you answer my questions I have no intent of answering yours.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Where in these figures, posted at least twice already, is M35 contemporaneous with its offspring? If anything, its the offspring who are contemporaries by Arredi.
1)Wherein in your post, was Arredi et al.'s upper bound E-M35 mentioned?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Supercar aka MysterySolver giving dates w/o CI. But that's OK. He can do it but I can't.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
If Luis et al. are anything to go by, the possible appearance of E-M81 in Northwest Africa, came about ~ 2ky:
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in acordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa 2 ky. The CONSIDERABLY OLDER linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario." - Luis
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Solve this mystery. Where's your CI?
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Test of E-M81 marker [a characteristic Tamazight expansion marker] in Tamazight speakers point to an expansion of about 8 ky ago northward, and the lesser tmrca expansion ages show a pattern of expansion moving westward.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Other than personal taste nothing's been presented to show anything is wrong with my postulation. And I still stand by it except for the sentence saying "geneticists [posit the three NA markers] moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward."
I'm moving on from the hair splitting commentary which doesn't effect the validity of what I wrote.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: If you can forgive my interuption with historical materials in a thread for anthropometric and genetic evidence, I'll say this.
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE) moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
The Meshwesh moved from the west to the east near 1250 BCE. Then, some 500 years later. Herodotus records the westward migration of his Libyans (E3b2-M81 backflow?).
Another 400 to 600 years later we read of blond Libyan women in the east not the west (Callimachus; Lucan).
I find it hard to accept that only far northwest North Africans are miscegenated with Euros just because they show the heaviest incidence of Eurasian mtDNA when there are indications from other fields that from Cyrenaica westward miscegenation has been ongoing since at least 1600 BCE.
* NRY data - Arredi 2004, Table 2
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind.
The above sarcasm would seem irrelevant to the fact that Arredi's data on E3b2 does not contradict Luis. Nor does it suffice as any kind of critique of Luis methodology or disputation of his conclusions.
This is the point where I have learned that discussion with you comes to and end.
It's the point where you take trivial matters as a personal front, and communication becomes impossible.
At this point, I leave you be,and move on to the next topic. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Why are you saying I didn't post a table showing a variety of TMRCAs for the three markers NA markers
Citation?
This was the point in contention >
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
Common sense deduces that, that date places E3b-M35 in the Neolithic timeframe as opposed to the Upper Paleolithic that the majority of geneticists place it, including Arredi et al., whom you misleadingly quoted out of context.
quote:al Takruri:
The paleolithic/neolithic thing isn't my argument and I don't appreciate trying to make it so.
Your post cited above again, makes your post questionable. Call it an argument or what not, but that’s the reality of your claim.
quote: al Takruri:
It's the opinion of Bosch 2001 and was referenced as evidence showing there are differences of opinion.
Bosch made no mention of E3b-M35 being just ~ 6300. That is your claim; you are putting your own words in the researchers’ mouths.
quote:al Takruri:
Do you have her recanting her decision in any later report of hers as team leader or member of some other geneticists team? If not then I take it she stands by her 2001 findings and publication.
Firstly, what relevance does this question have on the fact that you misquoted her?
Secondly, if another study renders Arredi et al.’s work dated or relatively less significant in light of additional or new material , since when does Arredi et al. have to officially admit to this, in order for well-read [genetically speaking] and alert folks to arrive at that conclusion for themselves about the status quo? Should Carlton Coon have recanted his now discredited claims, before you would realize that his claims no longer hold water?
quote: al Takruri:
Again my point is that geneticists differ on the TMRCAs of the NA markers and choosing Arredi's dates was supportive of the map based on Behrens in Willamson's article out of Vogel's book .
Your point is pointless because:
1)It has been shown to you that several geneticists are in general agreement with one another on their estimations, while being well aware of the distinct circumstances with which respective studies had been undertaken. You chose not to read it, and hence, start to sound like a broken record, repeating the same discredited line over and over again.
2)You also misquoted Arredi et al. out of context. Moreover, E3b-M35 isn’t characteristic of Berber expansion.
quote:al Takruri:
Whether anyone accepts it or not has no bearing on its valdity.[/quotre]
Whether you accept it or not, your post about E3b-M35 is misleading and invalid.
quote: al Takruri:
For those who don't like it I invite you to use whichever geneticists' TMRCAs you prefer and any linguists' material whose dates for proto-"Berber" and its branches matches it.
Yes, this has been done already, in the posts you chose not to read, and so I reiterate:
Semino et al.’s expansion dating for specifically E-M81, which is considered ‘characteristic’ of ‘Berber’ expansion, most approximates the date [of c. 8 ky ago] suggested by the 'linguist'/author cited herein. Arredi et al.’s lower bound estimation for E3b-M35 has no specific bearings on ‘Berber’ expansions; they were quoted out of context by yourself, leaving out the upper bound estimations, thus giving a false impression of a Neolithic TMRCA for E3b-M35.
quote:al Takruri:
I see you refuse to answer my question and substitute questions for lack of answers.
Wherein in your post was any CI given for you 24kya figure?
The question is immaterial to begin with, because the ~ 23 ky ago or so, approximation fits well within the upper Paleolithic expansion TMRCA generally agreed upon about E3b-M35. It isn’t an extraordinary claim as your's is about the ~ 6300 BC M35 TMRCA. You obviously don’t know the difference between a questionable claim, and one that is generally understood.
“On the basis of robust phylogeographic considerations, an eastern African origin has been proposed for E-M215 (Underhill et al. 2001; Cruciani et al. 2004), with a coalescence time of 22.4ky (95% C.I. 20.9-23.9ky; recalculated from Cruciani et al. 2004, see Materials and Methods). A north-eastern African origin for Haplogroup E-M78 implies that E-M215 chromosomes were introduced in north-eastern Africa from eastern Africa in the Upper Paleolithic, between 23.9ky ago (the upper bound for E-M215 TMRCA in eastern Africa) and 17.3ky ago (the lower bound for E-M78 TMRCA here estimated, fig. 1). In turn, the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in north-eastern Africa. The nested arrangement of Haplogroups E-V12 and E-V32 defines an upper and lower bound for this episode, i.e. 18ky and 5.9ky, respectively. These were probably not massive migration/s, since the present high frequencies of E-V12 chromosomes in eastern Africa are entirely accounted for by E-V32, which most likely underwent subsequent geographically restricted demographic expansions involving well differentiated molecular types (fig. 3A). Conversely, the absense of E-V12* chromosomes in eastern Africa is compatible with loss by drift.” - Cruciani et al. 2007
^Case in point.
quote:al Takruri:
I've already explained the CI is not the gist of the date because very few if more than one of the samples will have either CI extreme.
For E3b-M35, the upper bound Paleolithic, is more significant than any lower bound Neolithic TMRCA, because from common sense, M35 is understood to be of Paleolithic extraction, not Neolithic. Any young TMRCA citation of M35, has to be accompanied by the upper bound expansion, to give the more complete and realistic picture. And again, your choice of M35 to explain ‘Berber’ expansion, is peculiar to say the least.
quote:al Takruri: And until you answer my questions I have no intent of answering yours.
Well, you’ve already chosen to not read my posts, as these late replies of your's ascertain. Instead, you incessantly recite your discredited lines, and go off on a tangent from the issue at hand. Goes without saying, you post remains as questionable, as it was from the time I initially questioned it. You choice, if you wish to leave it in that status quo.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Supercar aka MysterySolver giving dates w/o CI. But that's OK. He can do it but I can't.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar:
If Luis et al. are anything to go by, the possible appearance of E-M81 in Northwest Africa, came about ~ 2ky:
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in acordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
Broken logic. As anyone can see [or in your case, cannot see], a full citation of the primary text showing the dates was provided, to support what was said.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: "This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa 2 ky. The CONSIDERABLY OLDER linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario." - Luis
Another broken logic.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Solve this mystery. Where's your CI?
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Test of E-M81 marker [a characteristic Tamazight expansion marker] in Tamazight speakers point to an expansion of about 8 ky ago northward, and the lesser tmrca expansion ages show a pattern of expansion moving westward.
Lol. It isn’t a mystery; It just requires simple/effortless reading of what has already been posted.
Semino et al. E-M81 ~ 8.6 +/- 2.3 ky ago.
And again,…
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in acordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
In both cases, E-M81 is the specific marker in question, which has been deemed to correlate with “Berber” speaking groups’ movements.
quote:al Takruri:
Other than personal taste nothing's been presented to show anything is wrong with my postulation.
Other than personal lack of taste for simple reading, or opening up your mind, specifics have already been laid out, as far as your questionable claim is concerned. Your incapacity to read, is nobody else’s problem.
quote:al Takruri: And I still stand by it except for the sentence saying "geneticists [posit the three NA markers] moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward."
And your claim shall still be questionable and invalid.
quote:al Takruri:
I'm moving on from the hair splitting commentary which doesn't effect the validity of what I wrote.
Running away from a questionable claim and posts that specifically address it, doesn’t lend it anymore legitimacy. In fact, it makes its status even more acute to see.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind.
The above sarcasm would seem irrelevant to the fact that Arredi's data on E3b2 does not contradict Luis. Nor does it suffice as any kind of critique of Luis methodology or disputation of his conclusions.
This is the point where I have learned that discussion with you comes to and end.
It's the point where you take trivial matters as a personal front, and communication becomes impossible.
At this point, I leave you be,and move on to the next topic.
You bet...you bet. Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
rasol wrote:
quote: Anyway for those who would like a scorecard, shows relationshiop of lineages to mutations....
Groups I II and III are A, B and E and originate in AFrica.
Note by reading down the tree you can see the relationship between YAP [DE], M96 [E], PN2 [E3], and thence E3a and E3b.
rasol, this comment included a map can you site where did you get this map?
Oh, I see. A simple statement on my part that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" amounts to sarcasm but you have nothing to say to MS regarding sarcasm when he uses smokescreen to describe my writings.
Do I detect what the British call "old boy"-ism here?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind.
The above sarcasm would seem irrelevant to the fact that Arredi's data on E3b2 does not contradict Luis. Nor does it suffice as any kind of critique of Luis methodology or disputation of his conclusions.
This is the point where I have learned that discussion with you comes to and end.
It's the point where you take trivial matters as a personal front, and communication becomes impossible.
At this point, I leave you be,and move on to the next topic.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Strawmen and smug opinionated personal drivel unworthy of further comment.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Common sense deduces misleadingly quoted out of context putting your own words in the researchers’ mouths what relevance does this question have alert folks Your point is pointless The question is immaterial to begin with You obviously don’t know the difference As anyone can see [or in your case, cannot see], personal lack of taste for simple reading, or opening up your mind Your incapacity to read
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Oh, I see. A simple statement on my part that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" amounts to sarcasm but you have nothing to say to MS regarding sarcasm when he uses smokescreen to describe my writings.
You bet - I call it how it is; in fact, I was rather polite by calling your tactic a ‘smokescreen’.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Strawmen
Specifics - citation, & explanation?
quote:al Takruri:
and smug opinionated personal drivel unworthy of further comment.
Specifics? - looks like a gutless way out of addressing the specifics of the real issue(s) at hand, wouldn't you say?
quote:al Takruri:
quote:A hodgepodge gathered from here and there by al Takruri, presumably "citing" Mystery Solver:
Common sense deduces misleadingly quoted out of context putting your own words in the researchers’ mouths what relevance does this question have alert folks Your point is pointless The question is immaterial to begin with You obviously don’t know the difference As anyone can see [or in your case, cannot see], personal lack of taste for simple reading, or opening up your mind Your incapacity to read
^This is just another prime example of how you habitually misquote people, and then call it a 'citation'. Thanks for providing more examples.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Oh, I see. A simple statement on my part that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" amounts to sarcasm
It was sarcasm, and *inappropriate* as well, because it was a reply to me, and by name, but the sarcasm pertained more to Supercar and so was completely irrelevant to addressing me.
However, the non-response did allow you to actually not address any of the information that I shared with you, which seemed to me to be your intent.
quote:you have nothing to say to MS regarding sarcasm when he uses smokescreen to describe my writings.
What you describe is a dispute between you and him.
Your mistake was in spitting your venom at me.
Your approach appears geared towards keeping and increasingly pointless argument going.
Well, continue then.....just leave me out of it, please. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
The 'point', in case anyone missed it,...
...goes along with the understanding, as noted earlier,...
...I posted, wherein the researchers in their very own words, proclaim to be in 'general' agreement with the other group, while taking into consideration the deviations born out of contexts in which respective studies were conducted, particularly in terms of sampling range and diversity, and the methodology utilized in dating chromosomal haplotypes, which have naturally gotten better with newer studies conducted than older ones [as I have exemplified in the Cruciani extract in the post that you chose not to read].
Arredi et al.'s estimations for E3b-M35 has to be assessed within the estimation boundaries provided, i.e. both lower and upper, to glean anything meaningful from the dating, because it is almost consistently maintianed in well known genetic publications, as cited in this board and elsewhere, that E3b-M35 is of upper Paleolithic extraction. So, when someone just cites only a piece of a bigger picture that suggests otherwise about E3b-M35, the idea generated from this amongst sections of well-meaning but relatively less-read folks where population genetics is concerned, can be misleading.
On an additional note:
Fact is, Arredi et al.'s 2004 dating estimations are largely reflective of mutational rate estimations of derivative E3b-M35 chromosomes of the Northernmost African populations they actually studied, rather than the more older M35 chromosomes [perhaps presenting themselves as an undifferentiated paragroup] found in the more southerly regions of the continent. Any further guesswork about the age of E3b-M35 by Arredi et al. would have to most certainly be based on studies that have actually analyzed these older chromosomes, not to mention the much broader spectrum of the M35 macro-haplogroup. To this end, it doesn't appear to be of any coincidence that Semino et al., Underhill et al., or Cruciani et al.'s estimations fall relatively much more closely within the same general ranges when it comes to E3b-M35, and its derivatives like E-M78 and E-M81, respectively, than they do vis-à-vis estimations by other researchers who had either not done as extensive a study on E3b-M35 chromosomes as the former, or utilized dating methods that had more recently given way to better approaches to attaining relative precision.
If there is a better fit for genetic citation, as far as Tamazight movement is concerned, Semino et al.'s estimation specifically for E-M81, rather than the ambiguous half-citation [not to mention out-of-context citation] of Arredi et al.'s estimation for E3b-M35 chromosome expansions, would be an appropriate exemplary one. Why?
Well for one, E-M81 has been deemed as the marker that correlates with Tamazigh/Berber expansion, and it is a derivative of E-M35; E-M35 isn't considered to be particularly 'characteristic' of "Berber"/Tamazight expansion. UEP M35 mutation is of Paleolithic extraction, not otherwise. Thus, any young non-Paleolithic proposal for M35 TMRCA dating is questionable, pending explanation of the specific context placing the expansion age in that young age, wherein a more complete expansion timeframe is provided; these age ranges have been determined, precisely because of the presence of derivative chromosomes, representing younger TMRCAs. In studies where the ancestral M35 chromosomes haven't been studied, upper bound ages are largely extrapolations from mutation rate estimations made for the derivative chromosomes [differentiated from ancestral M35 chromosomes] under study, rather than the M35 mutation itself. In some instances, some geneticists simply cite other geneticists who had actually studied more ancestral lineages, and the broader spectrum of the macro-haplogroup in question. On the other hand, in studies where actual ancestral [which likely express themselves as undifferentiated chromosomes sans later-derived UEPs] M35 chromosomes have been analyzed along with derivative M35 chromosomes, the results produced for the TMRCA ages will quite likely be different from those studies which didn't analyze the ancestral M35 chromosomes, and will likely also attain more precision where upper bound TMRCA is concerned, provided that an adequately comprehensive dating technique had been utilized to address potential irregularities inherent in mutation occurrences in the loci under study.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I find nothing sarcastic about the sentence "Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind." which is a mere statement of fact.
However, since it offended you, as a man to a man accept my sincere apologies and please understand my intent was nothing more than to show the lack of evenhanded criticism on MS' part.
As for the moot topic, I'm quite content with my dovetailing of Arredi and Behrens regarding the expansion of North African NRY markers and spread of "Berber" language(s). I stand by my proposition reposted 15 June, 2007 12:44 PM with its caveat pending further research on the possibility of a circa 1250 BCE eastflow of (an) NA marker(s) that corresponds to linguistics (North "Berber" spread from Tunisie/Tripolitania to Cyrenaica/western Egyptian Delta) and history (Meshwesh march on Egypt). Studies of Libyan genetics would prove helpful but I cannot presently uncover any.
None of the hair splitting eledes either scholars' dates and they do so well match each other.
I highly value your insight Rasol. I again extend the offer to you, and all who write in the spirit of collaboration between colleagues, to present data from any geneticists and linguists whose dates lineup so well as the two I chose.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Oh, I see. A simple statement on my part that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" amounts to sarcasm
It was sarcasm, and *inappropriate* as well, because it was a reply to me, and by name, but the sarcasm pertained more to Supercar and so was completely irrelevant to addressing me.
However, the non-response did allow you to actually not address any of the information that I shared with you, which seemed to me to be your intent.
quote:you have nothing to say to MS regarding sarcasm when he uses smokescreen to describe my writings.
What you describe is a dispute between you and him.
Your mistake was in spitting your venom at me.
Your approach appears geared towards keeping and increasingly pointless argument going.
Well, continue then.....just leave me out of it, please.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I find nothing sarcastic about the sentence "Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind." which is mere.....
...whiny sarcasm, in the absence of material fact, and a complete non-sequitur, which failed to address my post, due to preoccupation with your anger at Supercar. ... which you are now reduced to wildly venting in every direction.
Continue your pointless tantrum then....
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Well, it's certainly a fact you posted a date w/o a CI. And it's also a fact MS did not go after you about it. Now if that's sarcasm to you then I don't give a hydro-electric.
OK I tried apologizing to you but since you don't accept it then keep to your word and steer clear of me as your whining far outdrones anything coming from me. I did continue to cement my case with yet another explanatory table while all you've done is sulk about a misunderstanding I tried to set right. So who's really carrying on a pointless tantrum?
You guys do this all the time. Turn a discussion into a debate then drag the debate from the topic down into the gutter of taking pot shots at people.
You need to outgrow this so that the forum can attract and retain professionals but maybe you fear that the most.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^
quote:Continue your pointless tantrum then
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
I find nothing sarcastic about the sentence "Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind." which is a mere statement of fact.
It's what a person backed into the corner does, i.e. direct his/her frustration at other discussants for his/her incapacity to back up spurious claims, as if he/she is fooling anyone else but him/herself.
quote:al Takruri:
...show the lack of evenhanded criticism on MS' part.
Specifics & relevance to your obligation to support your spurious claim?
quote:al Takruri:
As for the moot topic, I'm quite content with my dovetailing of Arredi and Behrens regarding the expansion of North African NRY markers and spread of "Berber" language(s).
Being content with a spurious claim, makes it no less illegitimate.
quote:al Takruri:
I stand by my proposition reposted 15 June, 2007 12:44 PM
Trolls stand by the bogus propagation in the face of being bombarded with facts, but what is bogus shall remain bogus. It doesn't help them. Your post reveals signs of this troll trait.
quote: al Takruri:
with its caveat pending further research on the possibility of a circa 1250 BCE eastflow of (an) NA marker(s) that corresponds to linguistics (North "Berber" spread from Tunisie/Tripolitania to Cyrenaica/western Egyptian Delta) and history (Meshwesh march on Egypt).
E-M35 isn't a characteristic Tamazight expansion marker, nor is it of Neolithic extraction; nor was any such case put forward by the researchers you intentionally misquoted.
quote:al Takruri: Studies of Libyan genetics would prove helpful but I cannot presently uncover any.
You bet studies have been "uncovered" for you; all you have to now do, is to make the effortless task of simply reading, which you've thus far either chosen not to do, and/or else incapable of doing.
quote:al Takruri:
None of the hair splitting eledes either scholars' dates and they do so well match each other.
Given that you've misquoted Arredi et al., which scholar supports your spurious claim about E-M35?
quote:al Takruri:
I highly value your insight Rasol. I again extend the offer to you, and all who write in the spirit of collaboration between colleagues, to present data from any geneticists and linguists whose dates lineup so well as the two I chose.
Already done. What remains to be done, is your ability to read it. Misquoting Arredi et al. is just sheer abuse of logic.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Well, it's certainly a fact you posted a date w/o a CI.
It is certainly a fact that you have failed the reading test; you cannot tell the difference between your spurious misquotation about E-M35 [the real issue at hand, which you've tried to divert from by needlessly babbling on about CIs] and direct citation of the authors [like rasol's recitation of Luis et al.].
quote:al Takruri:
And it's also a fact MS did not go after youabout it.
Because unlike you, I can tell a direct/precise and in-context quotation of the researchers when I see one.
quote: al Takruri:
Now if that's sarcasm to you then I don't give a hydro-electric.
Trolls think that by attempting to anger other discussants, that they'll some how therapeutically relieve themselves off their frustration with their own underacheivements. Your post shows signs of this troll trait.
quote:al Takruri:
I did continue to cement my case with yet another explanatory table while all you've done is sulk about a misunderstanding I tried to set right. So who's really carrying on a pointless tantrum?
All the table represents, is your response to a question directed at your spurious claim/misquotation about E-M35. The table itself is a regurgitated incomplete citations of Arredi et al.'s datings. If you really weren't misquoting Arredi et al., how come you refused to use the dating you posted for E-M81, which is the correlative 'Tamazight' expansion marker, but went onto use lower bound expansion estimates of E-M35 chromosomes made from derivative E-M35 lineages? E-M35 is not specifically correlative of Tamazight expansion. Your own table works against you.
quote:al Takruri:
You guys do this all the time. Turn a discussion into a debate then drag the debate from the topic down into the gutter of taking pot shots at people.
What else can be done, when this is all what you do: troll and "then drag the debate from the topic down into the gutter of taking pot shots at people." You then proceed to proclaim yourself victim, and complain about why you aren't being taken seriously?
Case in point:
Originally posted by al Takruri:
You need to outgrow this so that the forum can attract and retain professionals but maybe you fear that the most.
If you can't handle scrutiny and criticism, it is any wonder why you even hangout in forums, or any debate for that matter!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
More personal fluff and flutter from MS, unfit for further comment.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: More personal fluff and flutter from MS, unfit for further comment.
^Equals non-answer to specifics, in turn equals cheap copout - another troll trait, might I add.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Mystery Solver writes: It is certainly a fact that you have failed the reading test; you cannot tell the difference between your spurious misquotation about E-M35 [the real issue at hand, which you've tried to divert from by needlessly babbling on about CIs] and direct citation of the authors [like rasol's recitation of Luis et al.].
Correct.
quote:Mystery Solver writes: It's what a person backed into the corner does, i.e. direct his/her frustration at other discussants for his/her incapacity to back up spurious claims, as if he/she is fooling anyone else but him/herself.
Correct again, and he's done this before, so....I just ignore his tantrums myself. Can't reason with someone whose best judgement has been sublimated by a raging wounded-ego. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
More of the dumb stuff MS. If I can't read then you're doubly illiterate to bother writing me.
You two little boys can pretend to ignore it while you continue playing the personal attack card but apparently others have noticed the tables I've compiled and the response to your "critiques" and seem satisfied.
Your methodology is to abandon all semblance of academic approach to a topic when material you don't agree with is presented and devolve to debaters' demagoguery. You've done it before and you'll do it again as tired and played out as it is now you'd think you'd give it up.
So keep patting each other on the back in your personality attack on me as your best effort to overlook the challenges put to you to present linquist and geneticist interwoven data that precisely match each other.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
More of the dumb stuff MS.
Specifics & citation?
quote:al Takruri:
If I can't read then you're doubly illiterate to bother writing me.
^Incoherent use of words, other than assuming that this is your retarded way of trying to tell me that, the act of responding to the super-retard that you are, is a stupid thing to do. If so, perhaps you may be right for the first time in our entire exchange under this topic.
quote:al Takruri:
You two little boys can pretend to ignore it while you continue playing the personal attack card
As eloquent as an infantile coward can possibly be.
quote:al Takruri:
but apparently others have noticed the tables I've compiled and the response to your "critiques" and seem satisfied.
Your responses addressed what specifics? Certainly your last post hasn't done that, or the ones before that.
quote:al Takruri:
Your methodology is to abandon all semblance of academic approach to a topic when material you don't agree
Specifics & citations?
quote:al Takruri:
with is presented and devolve to debaters' demagoguery.
Man, you only falsely and insecurely feel that, because you don't have the balls to address specifics thrown at you, thereby discrediting and making you look foolish.
quote:al Takruri:
You've done it before and you'll do it again as tired and played out as it is now you'd think you'd give it up.
Specifics & citations [vis-a-vis issue at hand]?
quote:al Takruri: So keep patting each other on the back in your personality attack on me as your best effort to overlook the challenges put to you to present linquist and geneticist interwoven data that precisely match each other.
This is the best you can come back at my substantive-laden demolitions of your spurious misquotations? No specifics, substance or answers - basically 'zip'. You are a joke.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Guys, all of this mud-slinging will no doubt lead to the close of this thread! I even forgot what the argument was about!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^That's the modus operandi of characters who have no answers, to distract from criticism & scrutiny of their propagation, by focusing on individuals rather than the issues under consideration. Those who allow themselves to be distracted, have essentially played into the hands of the distracter in question; this is precisely what the distracter hoped for - make people forget about his/her underachievements in standing up to the challenges and specifics offered on the real issue at hand.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Guys, all of this mud-slinging will no doubt lead to the close of this thread! I even forgot what the argument was about!